High  Church  Episcopacy; 


ITS  ORIGIN, 
CHARACTERISTICS  AND  FRUITS. 


"THE  TRUTH  SHALL  MAKE  YOU  FREE." 


B  Y 

WILLIAM  'ANNAN. 


PITTSBURGH: 
E.  S.  DAVIS  &  CO.,  No.  175  LIBEETY  STEEET. 
PEESBYTERIAN  BOOK  STORE,  No.  198  PENN  STEEET. 
1  87  4. 


Entered  accordiug  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1874,  by 

William  Annas, 
^n  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Vashington. 


PRINTED  AND  BOUND  BT 

BAKEWELl  &  MAKTHENS, 


CONTENTS. 


CUAP.  Paob. 

I.  High  Church  Pretensions.— Assaults  of  their  Writers 

upon  the  Presbj  terian  and  other  Churches,       .  5 

II.  Origin  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. — A  Historical 

Sketch,  16 

III.  Difficulties  in  Doctrine.— The  XXXIX  Articles  Cal- 

vinistic,  but  subscribed  by  an  Arminian  Clergy; 
though  the  XVIIth  teaches  Decided  Predestina- 
tion.— Immoral  Subscription. — Views  of  Macaulay,  2.3 

IV.  Justification  by  Faith.— High  Church  Errors.— Pu- 

seyite  Developments. — Tendencies  towards  Popery,  44 

V.  Articles  on  Original  Sin  and  Free  Will  admirably 
Calvinistic. — High  Church  teach  some  Natural 
Spark  of  Goodness. — Dying  Infants  according  to 


High  Churchism,  need  no  Saviour,     ...  58 

VI.  Popish  Doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration. — "S'iews 
of  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  others  who  framed 
the  Articles. — "  Stupendous  Change  "  in  Baptism. — 
Shreds  of  Popery  in  the  Liturgy,       ...  64 

VII.  Difficulties  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  in  connection 
with  the  Burial  Service.— Dangerous  Delusions. — 
Bishop  Hobart's  Evasions. — High  Church  Altars.— 
Confessionals  and  Pricstliood,  ....  83 
VIII.  Difficulties  in  the  High  Cliurch  Scheme  of  Govern- 
ment.—Doctrine  of  the  Three  Orders  of  Ministers. 
— Views  of  English  Prelates. — A  Bishop  in  Every 
Town  at  first,  102 

IX.  The  High  Church  Theory  of  Three  Orders  not  taught 

in  the  New  Testament. — Usher's  Reduced  Episco- 
pacy.— Strange  Perversion  of  Scripture. — Ordina- 
tion by  the  Presbytery,  113 

X.  Difficulties  in  Accepting  the  Fatliers  as  Interpreters 

of  Scripture. — True  Doctrine  of  Private  Judgment. 
— Early  Writings  (corrupted.— Scripture  its  own 
Best  Interpreter.— Delusions  of  the  Fathers. — Pa- 
tristic Puddles,  .137 


iv  COXTENTS. 

Chap.  Paoe. 
XI.  Same  Subject  continued. — Principles  of  High  Church- 
men.— Many  Early  Superstitions.— Infi&ted  Style 
of  the  Fathers.— Jerome  on  the  Gradual  Growth 
of  Prelacy. — The  Presbyters  Defrauded  of  their 
Rights,  156 

XII.  Difficulties  of  High  Churchism  in  connection  with 
the  Names  and  Functions  of  Ancient  Bishops. — 
Toplady  on  the  Fathers.— Fertile  Soil  for  Prelacy. 
— The  Primitive  Diocese  a  Parish. — Early  Bishops 
Chosen  by  the  People,  174 

XIII.  Clement  and  Ignatius  on  the  Authority  of  the  Primi- 

tive Bishop  and  the  Extent  of  his  Diocese  and 
Labors.— Four  Hundred  Bishops  in  one  Province. 
— Some  Ignatian  Epistles  Forgeries. — Calvin  on 
the  subject,  190 

XIV.  Same  Subject  continued. — Tertullian  not  a  High 

Churchman. — Jerome  on  "  Diaboli  Instinctu." — 
Bishops  alone  Entitled  to  Baptize. — Gradual  Ap- 
proaches to  Popery,  206 

XV.  Apostolical  Succession :  its  Nature  and  Difficulties  — 

This  Feature  the  Derision  of  the  World. — The 
Blessed  Martyr  Laud. — Muddy  as  the  Tiber. — 
High  Church  not  Great  Divines,        .       .  227 

XVI.  Tractarianism :  its  Origin  and  Progress. — Eggs  and 

Cheese  Good  Diet  for  Tractarians. — Postures  and 
Impostures. — Pope  Accepts  the  English  Prayer- 
Book, — Newman  on  Absolution  for  a  Hyena,  and 
Exorcism  of  a  Bactrian  Camel. — Puerilities  of  the 
Liturgy,  245 

XVII.  Ritualism:  its  Nature  and  Fruits. — Incense  and  Bow- 

ing towards  the  Altar. — Adoration  of  the  Elements 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. — Bethlehem  Bread  and  Jeru- 
salem Grapes. — Spurgeon  on  the  subject. — Advice 
to  the  "  Babel  Sects,"  269 


HIGH  CHURCH  EPISCOPACY, 


CHAPTEK  I. 
INTEODUCTOEY. 

HIGH  CHURCH  PRETENSIONS,  AND  CARICATURES  OF 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 

The  preparation  of  this  volume  was  first  suggested  to 
the  writer  by  one  of  the  leading  pastors  of  Pittsburgh. 
Our  friend  alluded  to  a  volume  of  discourses  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Van  Deusen,  then  Episcopal  Rector  of  St. 
Peter's  church,  Pittsburgh,  now  of  Utica,  N.  Y.*  These 
discourses  contained  numerous  very  offensive  statements 
and  assumptions  in  regard  to  the  Presbyterian  and  other 
non-Episcopal  denominations,  and  were  regarded  as  wor- 
thy of  some  notice,  particularly  as  reflecting  many  of 
the  common  misrepresentations  of  High  Churchmen 
generally,  in  reference  to  their  ecclesiastical  neighbors. 
As  a  type  or  representative  of  certain  extreme  positions 
assumed  by  a  portion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  they  seemed  to  call  for  some  suitable  review,  and 
to  furnish  a  proper  ground  or  starting-point  for  a  sum- 
mary exposure  of  the  unscriptural  and  semi-Popish 
tenets  of  Dr.  Van  D.  and  many  of  his  brethren. 

After  very  considerable  delay,  the  reasons  of  which 
are  of  no  general  interest,  the  writer  now  presents  to  the 
public  the  results  of  his  investigations  on  these  topics 

*_Dr.  Van  D.  was  one  of  tlie  candidates  for  a  vacant  bishop's 
'  chair  in  New  York. 

2 


6  High  Chtjrch  Episcopacy. 


He  has  been  encouraged  to  feelieye  that  his  book  will 
occupy  a  position  well  adapted  to  popular  usefulness, 
and  th?t  it  touches  on  many  points  not  noticed  in  other 
books.  As  a  comprehensiire  manual,  it  will  be  accom- 
modating in  price  and  easy  of  perusal.  It  meets  cer- 
tain popular  objections  commonly  employed  by  High 
Churchmen  ;  and  though  not  a  yoluminous  treatise,  it  is 
hoped  it  wDl  present  sufficient  argument  for  all  practi- 
cal purposes  for  those  who  will  candidly  and  seriously 
read  it.  Among  the  very  kind  and  cordial  expressions 
of  approval  from  some  of  our  most  prominent  pastors, 
to  whom  the  manuscript  has  been  submitted  in  whole  or 
in  part,  are  such  as  these :  "  Your  work  is  well  done, 
and  the  argument  is  effective "the work  exposes  the 
errors  and  offensive  assumptions  of  the  High  Church 
and  ritualistic  parties  in  the  Episcopal  Church  ;"  "  the 
subject  is  of  present  public  importance,  and  your  treat- 
ment of  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  calculated  to  do  good,  &c." 
Again,  we  are  assured  "that  such  a  short  and  easy 
method  of  repelling  the  proselyting  raids  of  High 
Churchmen,  as  they  are  sometimes  practised  upon  our 
congregations,  is  needed,  and  will  be  serviceable  in 
many  parts  of  the  Presbyterian  Church." 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  in  this  discussion  we  are 
not  the  aggressors.  We  merely  repel  the  assaults  of 
Dr.  Van  D.  and  many  other  High  Churchmen,  whose 
works  will  be  quoted  as  we  proceed.  "We  may,  indeed, 
give  the  "Rector"  the  credit  for  a  certain  degree  of 
moderation,  as  compared  with  some  others  of  his  co- 
laborers.  Especially  we  may  mention  one  of  his  oft- 
quoted  authorities,  "  The  Presbyterian  Clergyman 
Looking  for  the  Church."  The  author  is  dead;  but 
his  book  we  will  not  characterize  as  it  deserves.  Let  it 
speak  for  itself,  as  it  will  do,  in  this  and  other  chapters. 
Its  publishers  in  New  York  have  given  it  a  sort  of  offi- 
cial High  Church  character, 

"  Christianity  in  the  Republic  "  is  the  title  of  Mr, 
Van  D's  volume ;  and  the  object  of  the  author  is  to 
state  "the  dangers  and  the  hopes"  of  this  vast  common- 
wealth of  nations,  including  "  the  best  modes  of  sustain- 
ing" and  extending  its  great  interests.    To  muc^  that  is 


Introductory  Remarrs. 


7 


said  on  the  first  two  of  these  topics,  every  Christian 
patriot  will  yield  his  cordial  concurrence.  From  "  the 
want  of  an  enlightened  and  high-toned  patriotism," 
down  to  "the  luxury  and  extravagance  in  the  higher 
walks  of  life  "  and  the  malign  prevalence  of  "unbelief," 
we  find  much  to  approve  in  the  tone  of  righteous  rebuke 
assumed  by  "the  Rector,"  and  the  same  is  true  when  he 
speaks  of  "  the  hopes  of  the  Republic  " — crowning  the 
whole  with  the  consolatory  fact  of  "  the  existence  and 
pervading  influence  of  Christianity  throughout  all  parts 
of  the  land,"  p.  87. 

But  it  is  when  he  ooraes  to  examine  the  positive  remedies 
proposed  for  the  great  evils  enumerated — when  Dr.  Van 
Deusen  proceeds  to  investigate  certain  existing  modes 
of  religious  influence,  especially  those  which  he  earnest- 
ly repudiates,  that  we  are  compelled  to  record  our  dis- 
sent. Here  we  think  him  not  very  consistent  with  him- 
self, even  in  the  details  of  his  own  favorite  "  mode  "  of 
extending  Christianity.  But  when  he  enumerates  the 
several  grounds  of  his  opposition  to  the  methods  of  his 
ecclesiastical  neighbors,  our  dissent  is  not  uumingled 
with  feelings  of  amazement  and  indignation.  The  rea- 
sons of  this  will  appear  as  we  proceed. 

It  is  asserted  by  the  author  of  these  sermons,  that 
"the  sanctifying,  restraining  and  elevating  influence  of 
the  principles  of  the  gospel,  is  felt  among  all  classes  of 
our  people,"*  and  that  we  have  "  the  most  incontroverti- 
ble and  very  gratifying  evidence  of  a  powerful,  active, 
LIVING,  religious  element  in  our  population."  These  are 
candid  concessions,  especially  as  he  tells  us  in  the  same 
connection,  that  "  mani/  religious  bodies"  (which  being 
interpreted  by  Dr.  Van  D.  himself,  mean  all  denomina- 
tions except  the  Episcopal,)  have  departed  from  the  2')ure 
faith  and  rejected  many  of  the  profitable  institutions  of 
the  early  church  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles."  The 
Episcopal  sect  is  well  known  to  be  among  the  lesser 
tribes  of  Israel,  embracing  comparatively  a  small  pro- 
portion of  the  professing  Christians  of  the  country. 
And  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  malignant 
influences  and  downward  tendencies  attributed  to  "sec- 
*  Sermon  IV,  p.  87. 


8  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


tarianism,"  as  distinguished  by  prelatists  from  the 
Episcopal  CiiUECH — when  we  add,  that  by  the  showing 
of  High  Churchmen,  these  sects  "are  no  true  churches 
of  Christ,"  but  only  schismatical  associations  outsicle  of 
the  pale  of  the  "  covenants  of  mercy  " — we  may  well  feel 
amazement  at  "  the  sanctifying,  active,  living,  religious 
element  and  influences  "  which  are  admitted  "  to  exist 
among  all  classes !"  A  strange  phenomenon,  indeed, 
when  even  Di'.  Van  D.  discovers  grapes  on  thorns  and 
gathers  figs  of  thistles !  Among  nearly  forty  millions  of 
our  population,  the  clergj'  of  the  Episcopal  Church  are 
about  three  thousand  one  hundred,  the  congregations 
about  two  thousand  seven  hundred,  and  the  communicants 
about  two  hundred  and  sixty  thousand*  Thus  by  the 
Rector's  own  showing,  some  thirty  thousand  of  the  min- 
isters of  religion  in  the  land,  including  about  eight 
thousand  of  the  different  Presbyterian  bodies,  belong  to 
the  sects,  schismatical  or  apostate ;  and  as  to  the  com- 
municants, the  various  Presbyterian  denominations 
alone  report  above  nine  hundred  thousand  actual  meni- 
bei-s,  leaving  out  of  the  account  the  several  Methodist, 
Baptist,  and  other  evangelical  bodies,  which  number 
their  millions.  Hence,  it  must  be  obvious  to  every  un- 
derstanding, that  what  the  Rector  calls  "the  sanctit^'ing, 
active,  living  religious  element "  in  this  country,  must 
mainly  originate  with  "  the  sects,"  not  witli  the  compar- 
ative handful  of  Episcopalians.  On  Dr.  Van  Deusen's 
theory  of  exclusive  episcopacy,  "the  church  of  Christ 
and  his  Apostles"  has  had  but  small  instrumentality 
in  disseminating  so  widely  this  "  active,  living,  religious 
element."  And  the  admitted  existence  of  such  an  "ele- 
ment," so  extensively  prevalent  in  this  great  commu- 
nity of  nations,  is  a  strange  fact,  which  of  itself  discredits, 
if  it  does  not  utterly  explode,  the  High  Church  theory 
of  exclusive  episcopacy. 

We  are  not  framing  an  apology  for  the  existence  of 
the  numerous  organic  divisions  in  the  great  Protestant 
brotherhood,  much  less  arguing  their  positive  advan- 
tages. That  some  negative  benefits  have  accrued  from 
these  separate  organizations,  no  one  can  doubt.  They 

*  Church  Almanac  for  1874.   These  are  Episcopal  estimates. 


Introductory  Remarks.  9 


at  least  call  forth  that  activity  of  mind  which  is  often 
very  useful.  The  author  of  the  sermons  has  extrava- 
gant views  of  the  "  direct  evils  which  spring  from  the 
multiplication  of  religious  bodies,  to  stand  oftentimes 
arrayed  agaiust  each  other,  to  engage  in  controversy  and 
strife,"  &c.  But  he  has  also  a  \ery  plain  and  easy  cure 
for  tiiese  divisions.  Let  all  people,  he  seems  to  say, 
come  into  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  true  fold  of  the 
true  shephei'd  !  But  to  such  conditions  of  peace  there 
arc  numerous  and  very  obvious  objections.  We,  not  to 
speak  for  other  bodies,  are  conscientious  Presbyterians, 
and  of  course  would  greatly  prefer  that  bishops  and 
rectors,  and  all  other  Episcopalians,  should  forsake  their 
High  Church  errors  and  join  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
They  think  we  ought  to  become  Episcopalians ;  we 
think  they  ought  to  be  Presbyterians;  and  who  shall 
decide  between  us  ?  Nothing  remains,  therefore,  but  to 
take  the  laboring  oar  of  argument.  Show  us  that  you 
are  right,  and  we  promise  to  be  your  zealous  disciples. 
But  until  you  thus  satisfy  our  rational  nature,  it  is  ut- 
ter folly  to  expatiate  so  eloquently  as  you  do  upon  the 
value  of"  union."  For,  no  sooner  have  you  proclaimed 
in  our  ears,  "  Come  over  and  join  us,"  than  the  sincere 
Presbyterian  retorts,  "  Do  you  forsake  your  anti-scriptu- 
ral notions  and  become  of  us !  Do  this,  and  we  shall 
then  form  a  glorious  union !"  Thus  it  is  demonstrable 
that  all  that  remains  for  either  party,  is  in  the  fear  of 
God  to  "  search  the  Scriptures,"  and  inquire  what  they 
teach  on  th&se  topics.  "  Come  now  and  let  us  reason 
TOGETHER,"  is  the  invitation  of  the  only  infallible  tri- 
bunal in  the  universe,  even  God  himself,  who  by  his 
own  example  teaches  us  how  to  correct  the  errors  and 
restrain  the  discordant  principles  and  practices  of  his 
children. 

I  am  not  ignorant  of  the  favorite  plea  of  prelatists  in 
this  connection  :  "  We  Episcopalians,"  Dr.  Van  D.  tells 
us,  "are  of  the  church  of  Christ;"  all  others  are  "but 
sects."  Hence,  to  expose  our  diversities  with  all  liis  zeal 
and  eloquence,  he  esteems  a  Christian  duty.  "  The  ac- 
tual working  of  the  sect  spirit — the  true  influence  of 
separations  and  divisions — how  the  head  is  bowed  in 


10  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


shame,"  &c.,  &c.*  "  Their  discontent,  suspicion  and 
hostility — their  malice,  intolerance  and  persecution — 
their  sectional  prejudices,  interests  and  collisions" — are 
considered  fair  game.  Such  are  his  apostolical  methods 
of  pouring  oil  upon  these  troubled  waters !  These,  we 
suppose,  are  fair  specimens  of  Dr.  Van  Deusen's  version 
of  a  certain  text.  He  seems  to  read  as  follows :  "  Let 
there  be  strife  between  us,  for  we  are  not  brethren!" 
In  the  midst  of  his  zeal  for  peace  and  union,  he  seems 
to  forget  that  possibly  some  members  of  these  "  sects  " 
may  feel  provoked  to  resent  this  arrogant  claim,  and 
retort  by  an  assault  upon  "the  church"  and  her  not  too 
modest  defenders !  Thus  there  may  possibly  be  fur- 
nished occasion  for  more  "  hostile  strife,"  unsettling  the 
minds  of  men,  destroying  confidence,  removing  the 
landmarks,  producing  envying  and  every  evil  work.""}" 
"We  suppose,  however,  that  Mr.  Van  D.  will  very  com- 
placently flatter  himself  that  for  all  this  "  the  church" 
is  guiltless,  and  he  will  stand  in  utter  amazement  at  the 
recklessness  with  which  these  "sectarians"  can  venture 
to  assail  "divine  institutions!"  He,  no  doubt,  thinks 
"  the  sects"  are  under  great  obligations  to  him,  the  re- 
presentative of  "  the  true  church ;"  and  he  will  not  con- 
ceal his  wonderment  that  his  "righteous  smiting"  is 
not  received  as  a  "kindness,  nor  as  an  excellent  oil 
which  shall  not  break  our  heads."  Ps.  141 :  5. 

It  is  a  great  mistake,  therefore,  to  assume  at  the  outset 
in  these  discussions,  that  the  High  Church  Episcopal 
theory  is  true,  and  all  others  false !  If  all  the  leading 
Protestant  denominations,  constituting,  as  they  do,  the 
great  brotherhood  of  the  Keformation  (except  the  small 
minority  of  High  Churchmen),  are  no  branches  of  the 
true  Vine,  but  mere  "  human  associations,"  without  a 
lawful  ministry,  Avithout  the  authoritative  preaching  of 
the  Avord,  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  other 
divine  institutions— if  this  were  as  clear  to  mankind  in 
general  as  it  appears  to  be  to  these  High  Church  breth- 
ren, the  case  would  be  a  plain  one.  But  they  well 
know  that  many  of  the  most  learned,  and  pious,  and 
useful  of  their  own  associates,  including  some  of  the 
*  Sermon  V,  p.  73.  flbid. 


Intkoductory  Remarks. 


11 


highest  dignitaries,  regard  "with  utter  disgust  and  con- 
tempt these  arrogant  pretensions,  and  agree  more  nearly 
with  the  Presbyterian  than  -with  the  High  Church  the- 
ory. Dr.  Van  D.  may  indeed  call  his  church  "the 
communion  and  fellowship  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles," 
without  entering  which,  he  tells  us,  we  can  have  "  no 
divine  reconciliation,  peace  of  mind,  triumph  in  death, 
and  bliss  in  eternity."  He  may  call  it,  if  he  choose, 
"  the  divine  plan  which  Christ  himself  instituted  and 
prescribed,"  and  denounce  all  other  forms  of  church 
organization  "  as  rival  systems  of  man's  device,"  "  hu- 
man organizations,"  &c.  He  may  proclaim,  "  say  or 
sing,"  at  his  pleasure,  that  union  with  the  Episcopal 
Church  is  "  essential  in  order  to  gain  tinal  admission 
to  the  church  of  the  firstborn,  which  are .  written  in 
heaven."*  All  this  is  very  easy.  But  if  he  supposes 
that  such  arrogant  pretensions  as  these,  based,  as  they 
are,  upon  exceedingly  flimsy  proof,  are  the  sovereign 
cure  for  dissension  and  controvei-sy  and  strife— if  he 
imagines  that  they  possess  any  intrinsic  efficacy,  logical 
or  otherwise,  to  allure  the  members  of  "  the  sects"  into 
the  Episcojial  fold — we  beg  to  differ  with  him  entirely. 
We,  of  course,  cannot  speak  for  other  denominations, 
but  we  feel  sure  that  Presbyterians  are  not  to  be  made 
converts  to  his  notions  by  quite  such  a  summary  pro- 
cess. Protestants  will  not  readily  discover  "  the  odor  of 
sanctity"  in  assumptions  which  savor  so  strongly  of 
downright  Popery. 

There  is  one  presumption  against  Dr.  Van  D.'s  exclu- 
sive doctrine  which,  in  advance  of  other  argument,  may 
be  here  mentioned.  He  is  found  in  very  bad  compauy. 
The  Papist  unchurches  the  Episcopal  sect,  just  as  High 
Churchmen  do  other  denominations.  AVhat  sort  of  a 
"synagogue"  Popery  is,  Dr.  Van  D.  tells  us:  "Rome, 
paralyzed  at  the  very  heart,  supporting  life  only  in  her 
local  stronghold,  when  torn  from  which  she  will  have 
neither  name  nor  meaning — while  her  worship  has  be- 
come a  gaudy  display  of  heathenish  idolutry."'\  Roman- 
ism, he  elsewhere  tells  us,  instead  of  making  "  its  every 
land  a  paradise  of  saints,  imbued  with  the  morality 
*  Sermon  I,  pp.  25,  26.        f  Sermon  VII,  p.  152. 


12  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


and  piety  of  the  gospel,"  has  made  France  and  other 
kingdoms,  when  most  entirely  under  its  control,  "  na- 
tions of  infidels."  Yet,  Popery  claims  to  be  the  only 
true  church,  just  as  High  Church  Episcopacy  does! 
So,  also,  the  Campbellite  Baptists — all  besides  them- 
selves are  "  the  Babylonish  sects !"  The  same  claim 
is  set  up  by  Judaism  ;  and  even  Jlormonism  ventures  to 
arrogate  an  exclusive  title  to  divine  favor,  and  calls 
her  system  of  brutish  abomiuations,  "the  Church  of 
Saints."  Systems,  like  men,  may  often  be  known  by 
the  company  they  keep.*  Dr.  Van  Deusen  agrees  with 
us,  that  the  exclusive  pretensions  of  Popery,  Campbell- 
ism,  Judaism  and  Mormonism,  to  be  the  only  "true 
church,"  are  beneath  contempt.  We  hope  to  show  that 
his  own  modest  claims  are  not  much  better  entitled  to 
respect. 

But  had  not  Dr.  Van  Deusen  a  perfect  right,  in  the 
discharge  of  his  parochial  duties,  to  preach  and  publish 
such  sentiments  as  these  ?  In  reply,  we  need  only  sug- 
gest that  the  simple  fact  of  the  printing  and  publication 
of  these  discourses,  adapted,  as  they  are,  to  place  all 
non-Episcopalians  in  the  position  of  "  aliens  from  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel  and  strangers  to  the  covenants 
of  promise,"  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  most  careful  and 
thorough  examination  of  their  logical  foundations.  Be- 
sides, these  discourses  are  submitted  to  "  the  indulgence 
of  the  reader,"  p.  10  (not  to  the  Episcopal  "  reader"), 
"  who  is  invited  to  the  careful  consideration  of  their 
truths."  "  They  are  avowedly  submitted  to  all  who 
take  pleasure  in  being  recognized  as  a  part  of  the  Ee- 
public,  and  feel  honored  with  the  appellation  of  Ameri- 
can citizens."  In  addition  to  this,  the  thirty-six  re- 
spectable gentlemen  who  solicited  their  publication,  say 
their  desire  was  "  to  give  these  discourses  a  more  per- 

*  We  beg  pardon  for  the  introduction  of  Brigham  Young  and 
Jus  crew  into  the  argument.  But  we  only  copy  the  example  of 
Rev.  F.  S.  Mines,  whose  book  Dr.  Van  Deusen  repeatedly  quotes 
with  approbation.  In  " enumerating"  the  schismatical  "sects" 
Mr.  Mines  includes  "  the  Latter  Day  Saints,"  and  on  a  subsequent 
page  adds,  "  So  it  lias  ever  been  from  the  Baptists  to  the  Mor- 
mon*!, &e." 


Introductory  Remarks. 


13 


manent  form,  and  the  important  truths  they  set  forth  a 
more  extended  hearing."  The  volume  is  therefore  a 
legitimate  subject  of  criticism,  and  the  inalienable  right 
of  self-defence  fully  authorizes  a  fair  and  candid  inves- 
tigation of  its  far-reaching  and  not  too  modest  positions, 
on  the  part  of  those  whose  cherished  views  and  ecclesi- 
astical relations  are  thus  summarily  disposed  of.  As  an 
"  American  citizen,"  and  as  a  Presbyterian,  I  assert  the 
right  to  bring  this  and  similar  publications  to  the  "  law 
and  to  the  testimony  ;"  for  if  they  speak  not  according 
to  this  rule,  it  is  because  "there  is  no  light  in  them." 

To  indicate  still  more  clearly  the  tone  and  spirit 
which  live  and  breathe  through  these  assaults  of  High 
Churchmen  upon  Presbyterianism,  the  following  ex- 
tracts, a  few  of  many  of  the  same  sort,  from  the  volume 
referred  to  in  the  foregoing  note,  may  suffice.  The 
book  is  one  of  Dr.  Van  Deusen's  favorite  authorities, 
and  is  published  by  "The  General  Protestant  Episcopal 
Sunday  School  Union  of  New  York."  "They  (Presby- 
terians), though  they  seem  to  have  a  sacrament  in  the 
Lord's  supper,  *  *  *  strictly  speaking,  have  no 
sacrament  at  all."  "Not  once  in  a  thousand  times  do 
they  grant  baptism  to  the  dying  penitent ;  not  once  in 
a  thousand  more  do  they  allow  the  Lord's  supper  to 
the  dying  believer."  "  Instead  of  teaching  that  few 
find  it  (the  way  of  life),  because  few  seek  it  as  they 
should,  Presbyterianism  teaches  that  few  find  it  because 
God  hides  it,  save  from  his  elect !"  "  Presbyterianism 
is  now  overtaken  in  all  lands  by  a  deep  and  mortal  de- 
cay." "  Presbyterianism  *  *  *  has  in  nearly  all 
lands  fallen  already  from  its  hold  on  the  skies  through 
a  Mediator,  and  is  cast  upon  the  earth,  covered  with 
the  awful  leprosy  of  Rationalism."  "  The  atonement 
is  preached  (by  Presbyterians)  as  a  naked,  stern,  quid 
pro  quo  commercial  transaction."  "  A  sudden  burst  of 
sorrow,  a  lightning  flash  of  joy,  and  repentance  is  done." 
"  She  teaches  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  7nere 
suffering."  "Except  for  the  Episcopal  Church,  thou- 
sands and  tens  of  thousands  would  have  no  other  home 
to  llee  unto  from  the  apostate  sects  but  to  the  bosom  of 
Rome."  He  means  that  if  he  had  not  joined  Episco- 
pacy, he  would  have  been  a  Papist  ! 


14 


High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


Such  are  specimens  of  the  pahulum,  the  "  heavenly 
manna,"  which  the  "  General  Protestant  Episcopal  Sun- 
day School  Union"  presents  to  her  children  for  their 
spiritual  nourishment !  Yet,  "  the  Prayer  Book"  con- 
tains the  Ten  Commandments,  and  along  with  the  others 
that  one  which  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  bear  fake  loitness 
against  thy  neighbor."  There  is  consolation,  however,  in 
the  assurance  of  our  divine  Master  :  "  Blessed  are  ye 
when  men  shall  revile  you,  and  persecute  you,  and  say 
all  manner  of  evil  against  you  falsely  for  my  sake. 
Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,"  &c. 

Let  these  extracts  suffice  to  determine  the  relative 
positions  of  the  parties  in  this  discussion,  whether  as  as- 
sailants or  the  assailed.  We  rejoice  to  know  that  there 
are  not  a  few  excellent  people  in  the  Episcopal  body — 
some  bishops  and  presbyters — to  whose  spiritual  dis- 
cernment the  foregoing  extracts  must  be  quite  as  nause- 
ous as  they  are  to  us.  To  such  "  beloved  brethren  in 
the  Lord,"  it  is  far  from  our  desire  to  say  a  word  which 
could  prove  offensive,  or  in  any  way  wound  their  feel- 
ings of  partiality  for  the  church  of  their  choice.  K  all 
Episcopalians  were  such,  there  would  be  small  occasion 
of  controversy  on  either  side.  And  whatever  compari- 
son of  views  might  occur,  there  would  be  no  disturbance 
of  friendly  church  relations — no  ebullition  of  unseemly 
strife — and  no  interruption  of  mutual  prayer  for  either 
branch  of  the  New  Testament  Zion. 

But  under  the  circumstances  already  detailed  (and 
many  similar  provocations  will  appear  as  we  proceed), 
it  is  surely  our  privilege,  not  to  say  our  bounden  duty, 
to  speak  for  God  and  his  truth.  At  the  same  time,  to- 
ward our  Low  Church  brethren,  we  cordially  recipro- 
cate the  following  kind  and  brotherly  expressions  from 
an  Episcopal  source : 

"  With  the  Presbyterian  branch  we  have  little  to  do. 
Not  that  they  are  rich,  and  have  need  of  nothing.  But 
we  never  remember  to  have  seen  but  one  sermon  upon 
Presbyterianism  in  our  lives.  The  great  majority  of 
Presbyterian  ministers,  to  their  honor  be  it  spoken, 
preach  Christ,  and  him  alone.  There  is  less  of  cant  or 
ranting,  or  sentimental  preaching,  in  that  branch  of  the 
Church  than  elsewhere." 


Introductory  Remarks.  15 


Again :  "  It  matters  little  from  what  point  we  ap- 
proach Presbyterianism,  it  is  solid  granite,  whether  we 
regard  its  doctrine,  its  discipline,  or  its  worship.  The 
best  minds  in  the  church  have  framed  its  creed,  the 
wisest  of  men  have  learned  civil  government  from  its 
polity,  and  in  these  days  of  ritualistic  abominations 
there  isone  church  where  we  can  go  and  Avorship  God  in 
simplicity  and  in  truth."  "  Its  glory  is  its  stability  and 
good  sense." 

Let  the  reader  compare  with  these  sentiments  the 
foregoing  monstrous  misrepresentations  of  a  rabid  High 
Churchman  and  his  publishers  of  "  The  General  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Sunday  School  Union  of  New  York." 


16  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PKAYER — A  HISTOR- 
ICAL SKETCH. 

As  "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer "  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  is  at  once  a  summary  of  doctrine  and  a  direc- 
tory for  worship,  and  next  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  held 
in  the  highest  reverence  by  Episcopalians,  especially  of 
the  High  Church  persuasion,  it  may  be  proper  to  briefly 
sketch  the  history  of  the  Reformation  in  England,  during 
which  the  Prayer  Book  received  its  characteristic  fea- 
tures. 

When  Henry  VIH  ascended  the  throne  in  1509,  Eng- 
land was  sunk  in  the  deepest  night  of  Popery.  At  that 
period  Henry  was  the  devoted  and  obsequious  servant  of 
the  Pope.  He  was  even  ambitious  of  the  character  of  a 
theological  polemic;  and  some  years  afterwards  wrote 
a  work  in  opposition  to  Luther,  for  which  the  holy 
Father  dubbed  him  "Defender  of  the  Faith."  Of  the 
reasons  which  led  that  monarch  step  by  step  to  break 
with  Rome  and  reject  her  authority,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
speak,  since  all  admit  that  the  best  and  noblast  ends  are 
often,  in  divine  Providence,  brought  about  by  the  most  un- 
worthy instruments.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  having  in 
1536  come  to  an  open  rupture  with  Rome,  the  king  set 
up  for  himself  as  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  the  politi- 
cal head  of  the  nation.  Ten  years  later,  Bishop  Hooper, 
afterwards  martyred  under  bloody  Mary,  wrote  as  fol- 
lows :  "As  far  as  true  religion  is  concerned,  idolatry  is 
no  where  in  greater  vigor.  Our  king  (Henry  VIH) 
has  destroyed  the  Pope,  but  not  Popery.  *  *  *  * 
The  impious  mas?,  the  most  shameful  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  the  invocation  of  saints,  auricular  confession,  * 


Origin  of  the  Prayer  Book. 


17 


*  *  *  were  never  before  held  in  greater  esteem  by 
the  people."  The  next  year  (1547)  Edward  VI  began 
to  reign.  He  was  a  zealous  Protestant,  "  abolished  the 
mass,  threw  down  the  statues  and  images,  gave  the  cup 
to  the  laity,  set  forth  a  form  of  public  worship  or  liturgy, 
and  prohibited  all  the  popish  monuments  of  superstition, 
excejrt  the  surplice,  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  supper,"  and 
one  or  two  other  things  of  no  great  importance.* 

In  a  little  more  than  six  years  Edward  died,  and  his 
sister,  "  the  bloody  Mary,"  succeeded  to  the  throne. 
She  was  a  most  bigoted  and  furious  papist,  and  of  course 
labored  to  undo  all  that  her  father  and  brother  had 
done  for  the  cause  of  the  Keformation.  She  had  suffi- 
cient influence  with  the  Parliament  to  induce  them  to 
repeal,  at  one  stroke,  all  the  statutes  which  Henry  and 
Edward  had  passed  to  establish  the  reformed  religion. 
Hooper,  Cranmer,  Rogers,  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  many 
others  of  the  noble  reformers,  were  the  victims  of  her 
blind  superstition,  and  Popery,  in  the  language  of  the 
queen  to  Bonner,  lier  favorite  bishop,  let  loose  its  ven- 
geance without  restraint,  "pursuing  its  piom  work  with- 
out pity  or  interruption." 

In  five  years,  through  the  goodness  of  God,  this  mer- 
ciless bigot  died,  and  in  1558  Elizabeth  assumed  the  scep- 
tre. "She  is  not  willing,"  writes  Bishop  Parkhurst,  "  to 
be  called  the  head  of  the  Church  of  England,  but  she 
accepts  the  title  of  governor,  which  amounts  to  the  same 
thing."  It  was  during  the  splendid  reign  of  this  great 
princess  for  more  than  forty  years,  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  fully  and  firmly  established  in  doctrine  and 
worship  nearly  as  at  the  present  day.  King  Edward's 
Liturgy  was  revised  in  council,  and  in  1559  established 
by  law,  though  to  satisfy  Elizabeth,  it  was  made  much 
less  decidedly  Protestant.  A  clause  was  inserted  in  the 
act,  empowering  the  queen  to  ordain  further  ceremonies, 
and  without  this  clause  she  told  Parker  she  would  have 
withheld  her  sanction.  She  soon  appointed  the  Court  of 
High  Commission,  the  object  of  which  was  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  religion. 

She  forbid  priests  and  deacons  to  marry  without  leave 
*  Letter  of  George  Withers,  in  Zurich  Letters,  pp.  158-9. 


18  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


of  the  bishops  and  two  justices  of  the  peace;  and  bish- 
ops too,  without  the  consent  of  the  archbishops  and  the 
High  Commissioners.  She  frowned  upon  preaching,  and 
established  for  the  Sabbath  day,  "  The  Book  of  Sports." 
She  ordained  that  family  and  private  prayer  should  be 
discouraged,  and  that  all  formal  prayer  should  be  offered 
in  the  churches.  Bishop  Sandys  observes  that  multi- 
tudes did  not  hear  one  sermon  for  seven  years.  In  her 
chapel  she  had  images  and  crucifixes  and  lighted  can- 
dles, and  commanded  the  clergy  to  wear  full  canoni- 
cal dress.  Against  some  of  her  appointments,  the  wisest 
and  best  of  her  clergy  bitterly  complained.  Ridley  or- 
dered tables  to  be  substituted  for  altars  in  the  churches. 
Hooper  refused  to  wear  the  sacerdotal  vestments.  Bishop 
Jewel  declared  the  priest's  raiment  to  be  "  a  stage  dress, 
a  fool's  garb,  a  relique  of  the  Amorites !"  When  on  one 
occasion  the  queen's  chaplain  preached  against  the  sign 
of  the  cross,  unable  to  restrain  her  anger,  she  shouted  to 
him,  "  Desist  from  that  ungodly  digression,  and  go  on 
with  your  text."* 

In  view  of  such  facts,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  the 
pious  Coverdale  and  others,  writing  to  their  friends  on 
the  continent  (under  date  1566,)  of  "  fresh  troubles." 
"  We  are  to  seek  our  pattern,  they  say,  not  out  of  the 
cisterns  and  puddles  of  our  enemies,  but  from  the  foun- 
tain of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the  churches  of  God." 
"The  clergy  should  be  distinguished  by  their  doctrine, 
not  their  garments ;  their  conversation,  not  their  dress." 
"Many  of  us  have  cast  out  these  things,  and  cannot 
restore  them  without  grievous  offence  and  abomina- 
ble impiety."  "  The  question  we  confess  is  nice  and 
difficult,  whether  to  yield  to  circumstances,  or  to  depart ; 
to  admit  the  relics  of  the  Amorites,  or  to  desert  our 
post."  "  The  papacy,"  says  Beza,  "  was  never  abolished 
in  that  country,  but  rather  transferred  to  the  sover- 
eign." "  In  cases  of  necessity,"  says  another,  "women  are 
allowed  to  baptize."  "  Every  one  is  obliged  to  com- 
municate at  the  Lord's  supper  on  his  knees." 

Under  such  auspices  as  these  the  Prayer  Book  with 
the  Articles  and  Liturgy,  was  ordained  and  received  its 
*  London  Eclectic  Eeview. 


Origin  of  the  Prayer  Book. 


19 


essential  character.  In  the  brief  space  of  a  quarter  of  a 
century  the  nation  was  converted  from  Popery  and  back 
again,  "  not  once  nor  twice !"  The  hoary  monuments  and 
other  remembrancers  of  the  old  superstition  were  every 
where  to  be  seen,  in  immense  cathedrals,  dilapidated 
monasteries,  &c.  The  masses  of  the  people  were,  of 
course,  at  each  vibration  of  the  ecclesiastical  pendulum, 
Protestant  or  Papist,  only  as  "the  stage  dress"  differed 
in  the  several  acts  of  the  drama.  Nor  was  it  to  be  ex- 
pected that  under  such  sovereigns  as  Henry  and  Eliza- 
beth, the  Protestant  religion  would  be  aught  but  a  polit- 
ical engine,  or  the  Church  of  England  be  more  than 
half  reformed,  satisfactory  to  no  class  of  persons  except 
the  monarch  and  the  worldly  and  ambitious  portion  of 
the  clergy.  No  wonder  that  conscientious  Protestants 
were  grieved  and  disgusted  with  the  garb  of  Popery, 
the  remnants  of  a  dreary  superstition,  which  met  the 
eye  on  all  sides.  No  wonder  that  the  Prayer  Book, 
especially  in  the  forms  of  worship,  bears  numerous  traces 
of  this  doubtful  parentage. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation  in  Eng- 
land, Popery,  as  already  stated,  had  struck  deep  its 
deadly  roots  and  dijfused  far  and  wide  its  malignant  in- 
fluence. Avarice,  insolence,  ignorance,  imposture  and 
shameless  corruption  in  morals,  were  the  common  char- 
acteristics of  the  priesthood,  and  blind  superstition  and 
abject  degradation,  those  of  the  laity. 

When,  therefore,  Henry,  vvho  had  renounced  the  Pope, 
was  succeeded  by  his  son  Edward  VI,  it  became  neces- 
sary to  prepare  a  form  of  public  worship  for  common 
use  in  the  churches  to  take  the  place  of  the  Romish 
breviaries.  A  committee  for  this  purpose,  digested  such 
a  volume,  collecting  the  materials  from  five  Latin  mis- 
sals or  mass  books,  which  had  been  in  use  in  the  same 
number  of  Popish  bishoprics.  '"'  The  greater  part  of  the 
Common  Prayer  Book,"  says  Bishop  Short,  '■  is  taken 
from  the  Roman  ritual."  "  Almost  the  whole  of  it  was 
taken  from  different  Roman  Catholic  services,  altered  as 
little  as  possible  from  tliose  familiar  to  the  people." 
Some  of  the  points  in  which  it  differs  from  the  Roman 
Church,  Bishop  Short  tells  us,  owe  their  origin  to  the 


20  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Liturgy  of  Strasburgh,  which  was  framed  by  Calvin, 
but  had  been  modified  before  it  was  published  in  Eng- 
land."* Copies  of  this  book  were  submitted  to  Calvin 
and  other  continental  divines,  and  at  their  suggestion  it 
was  revised  and  many  grossly  Popish  things  were  ex- 
punged. Even  then,  however,  adds  Bishop  Short,  "  the 
execution  of  the  work  was  far  from  being  so  complete 
as  its  first  appearance  might  lead  us  to  suppose."  "  Pray- 
ers for  the  dead,"  "anointing  with  oil,"  "the  outward 
sign  of  the  cross,"  still  remained.  So  that  this  book 
forms  a  connecting  link  between  the  missal  (or  mass 
book)  and  the  (present)  prayer  book."t  It  was  after- 
wards revised  by  Cranmer  and  others,  and  "  two  learned 
foreigners,"  adds  Bishop  Short,  "Bucerand  Peter  Martyr, 
then  in  England,  were  consulted,  and  their  opinions 
seem  to  have  influenced  the  decisions  of  the  bishops. 
Most  of  the  points  objected  to  by  them  were  subsequent- 
ly amended."  This  prayer  book  differs  very  little  from 
the  one  now  in  use."J  It  was  again  revised  under 
Elizabeth,  who,  as  Bishop  Short  concedes,  "  was  not  in- 
disposed to  approach  as  near  as  possible  to  the  Romish 
communion. "§  Such,  then,  was  the  origin  of  "the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer ;"  nor  need  it  occasion  sur- 
prise that  under  such  controlling  influences  and  embar- 
rassments even  the  godly  Calvinists  who  gave  it  its  origi- 
nal shape  and  form,  were  obliged  to  tolerate  many 
things  which  to  their  better  knowledge  and  scriptural 
conscience,  were  exceedingly  offensive.  As  it  is  used  in 
this  country  some  alterations  have  been  made,  but  it  will 
presently  appear  that  it  is  very  far  from  being  a  perfect 
image  of  Protestantism.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  however, 
illustrating  the  unity  of  the  mother  church,  that  a  num- 
ber of  her  leading  divines  some  years  ago  published  No. 
86  of  the  "  Tracts  for  the  Times,"  in  which  they  speak 
of  "  the  Prayer  Book "  as  reduced  at  the  Reformation 

*  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  p.  198. 

f  Ibid.,  p.  539.  "Liturgy,"  from  two  Greek  words,  meaning  pub- 
lic work  or  service,  i.  e.  the  prayers,  forms  of  baptism,  ordination, 
&c.,  adopted  by  Episcopalians. 

i  Ibid.,  p.  542. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  594. 


Origin  of  the  Prayer  Book. 


21 


"  to  a  low  and  decayed  state,"  "  shorn  and  left  bare  of 
much  that  is  valuable,"  "  in  a  degraded  condition,"  "in 
a  state  of  captivity  and  servitude,"  and  "  as  the  language 
of  those  who  have  fallen  away  (from  Popery  ?)  from  the 
richer  inheritance,  the  privileges  of  sons !"  Thus  "they 
were  preparing  men  to  return  to  the  sujierstitions  of  the 
Roman  mass  book."*  The  same  writers  seriously  labored 
to  prove  "  that  a  person  adopting  the  doctrines  of  Trent, 
might,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Pope's  supremacy, 
conscientiously  sign  the  XXXIX  doctrinal  articles  of  the 
Church  of  England," — "that  the  apparent  differences  he- 
tween  the  two  churches  (of  Rome  and  England)  will 
upon  examination  vanish  /"f  "We  will  not  equal  High 
Churchism  in  this  country  with  the  "  perfect  statui-e  "  of 
Tractarianism,  but  it  is  impossible  not  to  perceive  that 
in  this,  as  in  some  other  cases,  "the  child  is  the  father 
of  the  man."  Yet  this  is  the  sort  of  men  who,  with  the 
Rector  of  Pittsburgh,  make  large  boast  of  "their  unbroken 
uniformity  of  doctrine,  discipline  and  worship,"  denounce 
Presbyterians  as  "  guilty  of  change,  a  want  of  steadfast- 
ness in  adhering  to  those  standards  of  doctrine  with 
which  they  began,"  and  even  caricature  what  they  call 
Puritanism,  "  as  divided  into  countless  schisms,  unable 
to  defend  itself  from  the  heresies  which  it  has  conjured 
up,  and  changing  its  aspect  from  year  to  year!" J  But 
the  same  writer,  as  before  stated,  seriously  asserts  "  the 
actual  existence  and  pervading  influence  of  Christian- 
ity throughout  all  parts  of  this  land ;"  "  the  sanctify- 
ing, restraining  and  elevating  influence  of  the  principles 
of  the  gospel  among  all  classes  of  our  people  ;"  yea, 
he  says,  "  we  have  incontrovertible  and  very  gratifying 
evidence  of  a  powerful,  active,  living  religious  element 
in  our  population."!  These,  he  says,  are  the  "  highest 
and  surest  hopes  of  the  Republic !"  And  all  this  in 
great  part  through  the  influence  of  "  the  apostate  sects !  T' 
These  are  the  genuine  and  "  very  gratifying  "  fruits  of 
the  labors  of  those  denominations  who  have  "  no  au- 

*Cliarge  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  1842. 
t  Charge  of  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  1841. 
t  Mr.  Van  Deusen,  pp.  109,  139,  152. 
i  Ibid.,  p.  87. 


22  HiGu  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


thorized  ministry,"  "no  valid  ordinances,"  "no  cove- 
nanted mercies,"  or  as  Mr.  Van  Deusen  says,  "no  divine 
reconciliation,  no  peace  of  mind,  no  comfort  in  adversity, 
no  triumph  in  death,  no  blLss  in  eternity,  because  they 
refuse  to  enter  the  (Episcopal)  communion  and  fellow- 
ship of  Christ  and  his  Apostles!  !"*  But  let  us  not  cen- 
sure the  Pittsburgh  Rector  too  severely.  He  treads  in 
the  illustrious  footsteps  of  his  English  predecessors  in 
this  modest  line  of  self- laudation.  Thus  Dr.  Hook, 
Vicar  of  Leeds,  in  his  sermon  before  the  queen,  on  the 
text,  "Hear  the  church,"  speaks  of  the  (Episcopal) 
church  in  America  in  thiswise:  "  There,"  quoth  the 
vicar,  "  you  may  see  the  church  like  an  oasis  in  the  desert, 
blessed  by  the  dews  of  heaven,  and  shedding  heavenly 
blessings  around  her,  in  a  land  where,  because  no  religion 
is  established,  if  it  were  not  for  her,  nothing  but  the 
extremes  of  infidelity  or  fanaticism  would  prevail!" 
Modest  Dr.  Hook ! 

*  Cliristianity  in  the  Republic,  p.  25.  "  These,"  he  says,  "  are 
essenlial  divine  relations."    Episcopacy  or  perdition ! 


Difficulties  in  Doctkine. 


23 


CHAPTEE  III. 

DIFFICULTIES  IN  DOCTRINE — THE  XXXIX  ARTICLES  CAL- 
VINISTIC,  BUT  SUBSCRIBED  BY  AN  ARMINIAN  CLERGY. 

It  is  a  first  principle  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession 
of  Faith  and  of  common  sense,  that  truth  is  in  order  to 
goodness,  and  the  great  touchstone  of  truth  is  its  ten- 
dency to  promote  holiness.*  There  is  an  inseparable 
connection  between  faith  and  practice ;  otherwise  it 
would  be  of  comparatively  small  consequence  either  to 
discover  truth  or  to  maintain  it.  In  the  light  of  this 
plain  principle  of  common  sense,  we  detect  a  radical 
defect  in  the  plan  of  Dr.  Van  Deusen.  He  expressly 
disavows  any  intention  "to  examine  the  truth  of  the 
doctrines  of  any  religious  body,"  but  proposes  to  con- 
fine himself  "  to  the  practical  working  of  the  modes  or 
systems  adopted  for  the  dissemination  of  morality  and 
religion  throughout  the  nation.'''^  But  how  is  it  possible, 
in  practice  at  least,  to  separate  what,  we  may  say  it  with 
reverence,  "God  hath  joined  together?"  How,  for  ex- 
ample, can  you  test  the  practical  tendencies  of  Univer- 
salism  "to  promote  morality  and  religion,"  without  at 
the  same  time  subjecting  to  trial  the  truth  of  its  doc- 
trines f  And  the  same  is  true  of  Romanism  with  its 
"  blasphemous  fable  and  dangerous  deceit  "  of  the  mass, 
as  the  31st  Article  properly  calls  it,  its  purgatory,  in- 
dulgences, &c.,  &c.? 

But  let  us  bring  this  matter  a  little  nearer  home. 
How  is  it  possible  successfully  to  investigate  the  influ- 
ence of  Presbyterianisni  in  promoting  "  morality  and 
religion  in  the  republic,"  without  taking  into  view  cer- 
tain doctrinal  points,  which  the  Rector  is  pleased  to  call 
*  Confession,  p.  344.         f  See  p.  9. 


24  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


"  the  unpopular  tenets  of  Calvinism,"  "  individual  elec- 
tion and  reprobation,"  "  a  limited  atonement,  &c.,  &c.  ?"* 
Has  it  not  a  most  direct  bearing  on  this  subject  of 
"  morality  and  religion,"  that  Presbyterians,  as  High 
Churchmen  afBrm,  hold  doctrinal  views  which  imply 
"  a  cruelty  that  Rome,  in  the  days  of  her  worst  tyranny, 
would  have  shuddered  to  inflict  ?"t  Calvinists  are  said 
to  teach  a  religion  which  "  through  the  whole  circle  of 
trnth,  with  its  multiform  anathemas,  is  a  vast,  gigantic 
system,  frowning  and  scowling  sullenly  upon  the  sons  of 
men,"  "  and  which  has  kept  the  earth  wet  with  men's 
tears."!  Is  it  nothing  that  "  Geneva,"  i.  e.  Calvinism,  is 
accused  with  "fake  doctrine,  heresy  and  schism,  bewild- 
ering and  blighting  the  minds  of  men,"  "  the  mother  of 
a  miserable  brood  of  schisms,  horrid  and  blasphemous 
opinions  that  darken  and  curse  the  sectarian  world."§ 
Now  if  these  statements  are  true,  they  surely  relate  to 
what  Dr.  Van  Deusen  calls  "  the  practical  working  of 
the  mode  or  system  (adopted  by  Presbyterians)  for  the 
dissemination  of  morality  and  religion."  Nay,  they 
are  the  very  essence  of  it.  Take,  for  example,  such  pas- 
sages of  his  work  as  charge  Cah'inists  with  "  a  general 
giving  up  of  prominent  principles,"  "  doctrines  of  the 
Trinity,  divinity  of  our  Saviour,  the  atonement,  &c.," 
"  not  taught  now  as  they  were  by  Calvin,  Knox  and 
the  "Westminster  Divines."||  Thus  Dr.  Van  Deusen 
is  convicted  of  assailing  the  truth  of  the  Cahdnistic 
doctrines — the  very  thing  which  he  professes  to  have 


he  denounces  our  doctrines  as  untrue,  yea,  so  obviously 
false  that  we  Presbyterians  are  obliged  to  modify  or 
conceal  them !  "  He  avoids  the  examination  of  the  truth 
of  our  doctrines," — he  merely  argues  that  they  are  so 
obviously  false  that  Presbyterians  are  ashamed  to  avow 
them  ! 

We  need  scarcely  say  that  these  and  similar  state- 
*  Sermon  VI,  p.  109. 

f  Presbyterian  Clergyman  Looking  for  the  Cliurcli,  p.  60,  one 
of  the  Eector  s  own  authorities. 
X  Ibid.,  p.  502. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  530. 
II  Sermon  VI,  pp.  109,  110. 


Thus  in  the  most  offensive  mode. 


Calvinism  of  the  Articles. 


25 


ments,  are  the  fruits  of  ignorance  and  prejudice.  Tliey 
do  not  savor  of  "  morality  and  religion."  They  are  not 
the  weapons  of  Christian  warfare.  If  we  were  to  allow 
our  argument  to  pursue  a  similar  course,  we  would  sug- 
gest that  "  the  Rector "  has  only  adopted  a  familiar 
stroke  of  policy,  which,  though  sometimes  successful,  is 
not  ordinarily  esteemed  to  be  evidence  of  a  calm  confi- 
dence in  the  convictions  of  those  who  employ  it.  High 
Church  Episcopalians  are  certainly  not  entitled  "to 
throw  the  first  stone"  in  a  comparison  of  doctrinal 
vulnerability,  and  it  is  a  very  supposable  case,  that 
"the  Rector"  was  not  unwilling  to  divert  attention 
from  the  doctrinal  weaknesses  of  High  Churchism,  by 
professedly  ignoring  the  whole  subject.  Calvinists  feel 
no  such  restrictions. 

It  is  proposed  to  inquire  whether  the  XXXIX  Arti- 
cles of  the  Episcopal  Church,  especially  as  they  are 
expounded  and  adopted  by  High  Churchmen,  constitute 
a  part  of  "  the  best  mode  for  bringing  men  under  the 
righteous  and  blessed  dominion  of  the  gospel,  even  that 
mode  which  Christ  himself  instituted  and  prescribed."* 
I.  The  whole  practice  of  subscription  to  those  "  Arti- 
cles," as  it  prevails  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  is  opposed  to 
"  the  dissemination  of  morality  and  religion."  To  illustrate 
this  topic  so  as  to  be  level  to  every  understanding,  seve- 
ral particulars  require  attention.  The  Articles  of  the 
Prayer  Book  on  "  Original  or  Birth  Sin,"  "  Free  Will," 
"  Justification,"  and  especially  that  on  "  Predestination 
and  Election,"  are  pure  Calvinism.  They  meet  the 
entire  approval  of  every  enlightened  Presbyterian.  For 
example,  look  at  the  last  mentioned,  the  17th  : 

"  Predestination  to  life  is  the  everlasting  purpose  of 
God,  whereby  (before  the  foundations  of  the  world  were 
laid)  he  hath  constantly  decreed  by  his  counsel  secret 
to  us,  to  deliver  from  curse  and  damnation  those  whom 
he  hath  chosen  in  Christ  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring 
them  by  Christ  to  everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels  made 
to  honor.  Wherefore,  they  which  be  endued  with  so 
excellent  a  benefit  of  God,  be  called  according  to  God's 
purpose  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season:  they 
*  Sermon  V,  p.  91. 


26  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


throvigh  grace  obey  the  calling :  they  be  justified  freely : 
they  be  made  sons  of  God  by  adoption :  they  be  made 
like  the  image  of  his  only  begotten  Son  Jesus  Christ : 
they  walk  religiously  in  good  works,  and  at  length,  by 
God's  mercy,  they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity. 

"  As  the  godly  consideration  of  predestination,  and 
our  election  in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and 
unspeakable  comfort  to  godly  persons.  &c." 

Taking  the  words  in  their  plain  obvious  meaning, 
here  is  "  the  unpopular  doctrine  of  individual  election ;" 
no  stronger  Calvinism  is  held  or  taught  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church, and  the  same  is  true  of  the  other  Arti- 
cles mentioned  above.  Xow  compare  these  sound  evan- 
gelical sentiments  with  the  liideous  picture  of  Calvinism 
we  have  quoted  from  Dr.  Van  Deusen,  and  "  the  Cler- 
gyman Looking  for  the  Church  !"  Can  it  be  adapted  to 
promote  "  morality  and  religion,"  for  men  of  such  senti- 
ments holding  the  most  sacred  of  all  offices,  to  subscribe, 
and  promise  to  teach,  high  Calvinism  of  this  sort, — a 
system  which  they  profess  to  abhor  !  It  was  such  con- 
duct as  this  which  drew  from  the  distinguished  Lord 
Chatham  the  sarcastic  remark,  that  the  English  Epis- 
copal Church  is  constituted  of  "  Calvinistie  articles,  a 
Popish  liturgy,  and  an  Arminian  clergy." 

"  The  Thirty-nine  Articles"  were  drawn  up  princi- 
pally by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  though  aided  by  Ridley 
and  perhaps  one  or  two  others.  This  was  A.  D.  1551-52, 
in  the  reign  of  Edward  XL  But  did  any  one  ever 
suspect  Cranmer  and  Ridley  of  being  Arminians !  In 
1571  Queen  Elizabeth  signed  the  act  "calling  upon 
the  clergy  to  subscribe  (or  give  their  assent  and  adher- 
ence) to  all  those  articles  which  concern  the  confession 
of  the  true  Christian  faith  and  the  doctrine  of  the  sac- 
raments." "  The  whole  were  subscribed  by  the  upper 
House  of  Parliament  in  ^tay,  1571,  and  published 

*  Dr.  Scott,  the  commentator,  an  Episcopal  Calvinist,  says  of 
this  17th  Article :  "  It  speaks  my  sentiments  and  those  of  my 
brethren.  I  could  not  *  *  *  so  fully,  so  simply,  so  unex- 
ceptionably  express  my  sentiments  as  this  Article  does." — Reply 
to  Bishop  Tomline.  "  Perhaps  the  Apostle's  doctrine  was  never 
more  justly  expressed  than  in  the  former  i>art  of  the  17th  .Article 
of  our  church." — Comm.  on  Rom.  8:  28-."l. 


Immoral  Subscription. 


27 


under  the  superintendence  of  Bishop  Jewel ;  and  the 
ratification  with  which  they  now  conclude  was  added."* 
Yet  the  historian  tells  us  that  in  1632  "the  opinions  of 
the  Arminians  had  so  prevailed  among  the  high  clergy, 
that  to  entertain  sentiments  in  favor  of  Calvinism  was 
the  greatest  bar  to  preferment."  When  Bishop  Morley 
was  asked,  "  what  the  Arminians  held,"  he  replied, 
"  they  hold  the  best  bishopries  and  deaneries  in  Eng- 
land !"t  Nor  is  the  case  different  in  modern  times. 
Such  Calvinists  as  the  excellent  Thomas  Scott,  the  com- 
mentator, Newton,  and  others  of  the  same  sort,  may, 
with  good  conscience,  subscribe  these  Articles.  But 
what  shall  we  say  of  Bishop  Tomline,  with  his  "  Refuta- 
tion of  Calvinism  " — what  of  the  Pelagian  and  Arian, 
John  Taylor,  of  Norwich — what  of  Whitby,  who  scoffs 
at  the  doctrine  of  "  original  sin,"  and  speaks  contemp- 
tuously of  the  covenant  with  our  first  parents,  as  a 
"  forged  compact  between  God  and  Adam  ?"  This  is 
"  morality  and  religion  "  with  a  witness  !  and  unless  my 
information  be  entirely  incorrect,  Whitby  and  Taylor 
are  the  representatives  of  a  class,  whose  numbers  are 
by  no  means  incousiderable.|  Their  heretical  works 
are  still  read  and  admired  by  not  a  few  of  the  "  bishops, 
priests  and  deacons !"  and  to  cap  the  climax,  such  men 
as  these  are  permitted  to  live  and  die  in  their  fat  offices, 
with  none  "  to  molest  or  make  them  afraid !"  Nor  is 
the  case  different  in  this  country.  Mcllvaine  and  Johns 
are  the  doctrinal  antipodes  of  the  Onderdonks  and 
Doane,  to  say  nothing  of  the  morals  of  the  two  classes. 

II.  But  here  arises  an  important  inquiry.  By  what 
rule  are  "the  Thirty -nine  Articles  "  to  be  interpreted  ? 
Obviously  by  the  sentiments  of  their  framers,  who  pro- 
posed them  to  the  world  as  the  actual  basis  of  the 
Church  of  England,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  unity 

*  For  the  foregoing  facts  see  Bishop  Short's  "  History  of  the 
Church  of  England,"  pp.  325,  326. 
+  Ibid.,  309. 

t  "  It  (Whitby's  Discourse  on  the  Five  Points)  has  been  recom- 
mended by  some  of  the  highest  dignitaries  of  our  (the  Episcopal) 
church    *    *    *    as  an  able  elucidation  of  the  doctrines  of  Ar- 
minianism." — Advertisement  to  the  Ath  edition  of  Bishop  Short's, 
History. 


28  High  Church  Eplsccpacy. 


of  sentiment,  and  preventing  strife  and  dissension  in  the 
brotherhood.  "  The  legitimate  mode  of  interpreting 
our  Articles,"  says  the  Bishop  of  Eipon,  "  is  the  animus 
imponentis,  by  which  I  mean  the  sense  of  the  fram- 
EES  ;"  otherwise  "  the  integrity  of  subscription  appears 
to  be  endangered."  "  The  sense  of  the  convocation  of 
1571,"  (i.  e.,  under  Queen  Elizabeth,)  adds  the  Bishop 
of  Exeter,  '•  must  have  been  the  sense  of  Parliament  in 
the  same  year,  when  both  legislatures  for  the  first  time 
imposed  the  duty  of  subscription,"  "  and  the  civil  leg- 
islature, we  may  well  believe,  intended  that  they  be 
understood  in  that  sense."  "  The  articles  are  required 
to  be  subsci'ibed,"  adds  the  Bishop  of  Llandaflf,  "  as  a 
safeguard  against  erroneous  and  heretical  opinions.  * 
*  -  *  To  speak  of  the  language  of  the  Articles  as  being 
capable  of  two  or  more  senses,  and  that  the  subscriber 
may  therefore  take  them  in  his  own  seme,  *  *  *  is 
surely  a  dishonest  course,  &c."*  Much  more  to  the  same 
effect  miglit  be  quoted  from  the  highest  authorities  of 
the  Church  of  England.  We  admit  that  others  of  the 
chief  dignitaries  teach  that  "the  Articles  are  neither 
Calvinistic  nor  Arminian,  and  forbid  the  favorite  tenets 
of  either  party  to  be  so  taught  as  to  contradict  the  truth 
taught  by  the  other."  And  the  practice  of  that  church 
lends  its  sanction,  as  in  the  case  of  Hoadley,  Taylor  and 
Whitby,  to  the  grossest  forms  of  Pelagian  and  Arian 
error !  But  if  those  Ai'ticles  were  intended  to  be  "  a 
safeguard  against  erroneous  and  heretical  opinions," 
they  surely  cannot  admit,  without  the  most  glaring 
absurdity,  an  Arian,  Socinian,  Universalist,  or  Pelagian 
interpretation !  To  say,  with  Ai-chdeacon  Paley,t  that 
they  are  merely  "  articles  of  peace,"  intended  to  exclude 


tans ;"  and  that  every  subscriber  "  should  himself  be  well 
convinced  that  he  is  truly  and  substantially  satisfying 
the  intention  of  the  legislature,"  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  "the  sense  of  the  framers."  But  the  wide 
spread  prevalence  of  these  discordant  views  on  the  sub- 

*  For  these  extracts  see  Bricknell's  Judgment  of  tlie  Bishops 
(i.  e.  their  charges)  from  1837  to  1842 ;  a  London  work, 
t  Moral  Philosophy,  Book  III,  ch.  22. 


only  "  all  abettors 


Anabaptists  and  Puri- 


Immoral  Subscription. 


29 


ject  of  the  practical  working  of  the  system,  demonstrates 
clearly  that  the  Articles  are  a  mere  "  nose  of  wax,"  and 
that  they  are  made  to  mean  anything  which  "  the  sub- 
scriber himself,"  as  Paley  has  it,  may  prefer!  Even 
that  sturdy  Arminian,  Bishop  Short,  hints  to  his  breth- 
ren most  significantly,  "  that  it  should  be  remembered 
that  there  is  an  anti- Calvinism,  which  is  as  much  at 
variance  witli  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England 
and  with  Scripture,  as  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Dort 
can  be."*  If  such  be  the  state  of  things  in  the  mother 
church,  is  it  likely  to  be  at  all  different  with  the  Amer- 
ican daughter?  And  is  this  in  part  Van  Deusen's 
"  mode  of  disseminating  morality  and  religion  ?"t 

"  The  Articles  were  established  in  this  country  by 
the  Bishops,  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  Convention,  1801."  They  were  de- 
signed (in  England),  says  Dr.  Hook,  "  for  establishing  a 
consent  touching  true  religion,"  "  a  consent  in  opinion." 
"The  meaning  of  every  subscription,"  he  adds,  "is  to  be 
taken  from  the  design  of  the  imposer  and  from  the  words 
of  the  subscription  itself."  "  The  36th  Canon  expressly 
requires  the  clergy  to  subscribe  willingly,  and  ex  animo 
to  acknowledge  all  and  every  Article  to  be  agreeable 
to  the  word  of  God."  Dr.  Hook  also  quotes  a  statute 
of  Queen  Elizabeth,  "requiring  every  clergyman  to 
give  a  declaration  of  his  unfeigned  assent  to  ihem."X  Now 
what  a  solemn  mockeiy  of  "  morality  and  religion"  ap- 
pears in  the  infinite  diversity  of  doctrinal  views  among  the 
clergy,  from  Calvinism  down  to  low  Arminianism,  in  such 
men  as  Taylor  and  Whitby,  and  Arians  such  as  Clark— to 
say  nothing  of  infidelity  in  Colenso  and  others.  Yet 
they  are  expected  to  "  subscribe  ex  animo  and  with  un- 
feigned assent."  With  such  a  brilliant  example  in  the 
English  mother  church,  we  need  hardly  ask,  "  Do 
morality  and  religion  fare  better  in  this  country  ?" 

IH.  But  what  were  the  sentiments  of  the  framers  of 
the  Articles  ?    Were  Uranmer,  Kidley,  Jewel,  Hooper, 
Calvinists  or  Arminians?    Was  Edward  VI,  under 
*  Hist.  Ch.  of  Eng.,  p.  390. 
t  Christianity  in  the  Republic,  p.  9. 

X  Hook's  Church  Dictionary,  re-published  in  this  country,  with 
additions  to  suit  the  Prot.  Episcopal  Church.   See  Articles,  &c. 


30  High  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


whose  authority  the  Articles  were  published,  likely  to 
give  his  royal  sanction  to  Arminianism  ?  It  is  a  notori- 
ous fact  that  the  distinguished  Keformers  of  the  Eng- 
glish  Church  held  much  corresijondence  of  a  most 
friendly  sort,  with  Calvin,  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  Bul- 
linger,  and  many  others  of  the  prominent  non-Episcopal 
divines  of  the  continent.  Even,  the  early  Puritans, 
who  were  most  rigid  Calvinists,  had  no  controversy  with 
the  English  Church  on  doctrinal  poLats — their  opposi- 
tion being  mainly  to  her  form  of  government  and  modes 
of  worship.  In  1549  King  Edward  wrote  to  the  Senate 
of  Zurich  in  Switzerland,  as  follows:  "There  is  a 
mutual  agreement  between  us  concerning  the  Christian 
religion  and  true  godliness."  We  need  scarcely  say  that 
the  Zurich  body  were  Calvinists.  In  "  the  Short  Cat- 
echism," "  containing  the  sum  of  Christian  learning," 
and  required  to  be  taught  in  all  the  schools,  known  as 
"  the  Catechism  of  Edward  VI,"  the  following  statement 
is  made  of  the  great  doctrine  of  justification  :  "  The  first, 
principal  and  most  perfect  cause  of  our  justification  and 
salvation,  is  the  goodness  and  love  of  God,  whereby  he 
chose  us  for  his  before  he  made  the  world."  Is  that  an 
Arminian  sentiment?  Is  that  the  language  of  aTVTiit- 
by  or  a  Taylor  ?  Again,  "  All  that  is  good  in  us  or 
doneby  us,springeth  from  *  *  *  the  love,  choice  and 
unchangeable  purpose  of  God.  He  is  the  cause,  the 
rest  but  the  fruits." 

We  have  seen  that  Queen  Elizabeth,  in  1571,  signed 
"  the  first  act  requiring  subscription  to  the  Articles  by 
all  the  clergy."  To  manifest  her  desire  to  cultivate  the 
most  friendly  relations  with  the  Protestant  and  Cal- 
vinistic,  though  non-Episcopal  churches  of  the  conti- 
nent, she  wrote  in  1590  a  very  friendly  letter  to  the 
Swiss  Cantons.*  Under  her  reign  "  Calvin's  Institutes" 
was  the  text  book  of  theology  at  Oxford ;  and  in  1595, 
Barret,  a  fellow  of  Cambridge  University,  was  com- 
pelled to  make  a  public  recantation  of  a  sermon  he  had 
preached  against  predestination  and  the  perseverance  of 
the  saints.    Thus  much  for  the  sovereign  and  the  univer- 

*  For  this  and  other  documents,  see  "the  Zurich  Letters,"  pub- 
lished in  1842,  by  the  Parker  Society  of  England. 


Calvinists  Framed  the  Articles.  31 


sities.  Now  let  us  inquire  into  the  views  of  the  men 
whom  they  employed  in  the  construction  of  the  Articles. 

In  1552  Archbishop  Cranmer  wrote  to  BuUinger,  a 
strong  Calvinist,  inviting  him,  Calvin,  and  others  of  like 
mind,  to  "  a  synod  of  the  most  learned  and  excellent 
men  to  be  convoked  in  England" — for  what  purpose? 
"  That  provision  might  be  made  for  the  purity  of  ecclesi- 
astical doctrine,  and  especially  for  agreement  upon  the 
sacramentarian  controversy,"  "  and  whereby  taking 
counsel  together,"  he  adds,  "  they  might  handle  all  the 
heads  of  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  and  hand  down  to  pos- 
terity some  work,"  &c.,  "  thus  setting  forth  the  doctrine 
of  godliness."  Yet  these  were  the  men  who  held  "  horrid 
and  hideous  opinions,"  "  false  doctrine,"  "  heresy,  &c." 
What  a  pity  Messrs.  Mines,  Van  Deusen  and  other 
High  Churchmen,  were  born  a  few  centuries  too  late. 

In  1562,Bishop  Jewel  writes  to  that  most  thorough  Cal- 
vinist, Peter  Martyr:  "  Now  that  the  full  light  of  the 
gospel  has  shone  forth,  the  very  vestiges  of  error  must,  as 
far  as  possible,  be  removed.  *  *  *  *  As  to  7nat- 
ters  of  doctrine,  *  *  *  *  we  do  not  differ  from 
your  doctrine  by  a  nail's  breadth."  All  know  that  Peter 
Martyr  was  an  extreme  Calvinist,  probably  a  supra- 
lapsarian.  To  the  same  Jewel  says :  "  The  queen 
(Elizabeth)  regards  you  most  highly.  She  made  so 
much  of  your  letter  tliat  she  read  it  over  with  the  great- 
est eagerness  a  second  and  a  third  time."  "  She  thinks 
most  honorably  of  you  and  is  desirous  of  inviting  you  to 
England."  Yet  this  was  the  man  who  taught  "  horrid 
and  blasphemous  opinions."  To  BuUinger,  who  was  the 
chief  author  of  "  the  Helvetic  Confession  of  Faith,"  to 
which  Strype  says  "  our  (the  English)  church  did  then 
heartily  consent,"* — ^Bishop  Hooper  (1551)  says,  "Your 
writings  are  exceedingly  delightful  to  me,  and  to  all  who 
have  the  true  worship  of  God  at  heart."t  And  the 
next  year,  Bartholomew  Traheron,  an  eminent  London 
minister,  writes  to  BuUinger,  "  respecting  the  predes- 
tination and  providence  of  God,    *****  the 

*  Annals,  I,  II,  223. 

t  Wliich  being  interpreted  by  High Churclimen,  means — "ex- 
ceedingly delightful"  to  all  , who  love  "horrid  and  blasphemous 
opinions,  heresy,  &c." 


32  High  Church  Episcxjpacy. 


greater  number  among  us,  of  whom  I  am  myself  one, 
embrace  the  opinion  of  John  Calvin,  as  being  perspicuous 
and  most  agreeable  to  holy  scripture."  ***** 
"  He  has  thrown  much  light  upon  the  subject ;  *  *  * 
we  have  never  before  seen  anything  more  learned  or 
more  plain."  And  this  is  said  of  a  man  who  held 
doctrines  which  were  "  the  mother  of  a  miserable  brood 
of  schisms,"  and  "kept  the  earth  wet  with  men's  tears." 

But  we  have  still  stronger  testimony,  if  that  were 
possible.  Fifteen  years  after  the  act  of  Elizabeth  re- 
quiring subscription  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  there 
was  published  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Rogers,  chaplain  to 
Archbishop  Bancroft  (then  Bishop  of  London),  and 
dedicated  to  him,  "  An  Exposition  of  the  XXXIX  Ar- 
ticles." On  the  17th,  copied  on  a  previous  page,  he  lays 
down  the  following  propositions  regarding  the  doctrine 
of  election : 

1.  There  is  a  predestination  of  men  to  life  eternal. 

2.  Redemption  hath  been  from  everla.sting. 

3.  They  which  are  predestinated  to  salvation,  cannot 
perish. 

4.  Not  all  men,  but  certain  are  predestinated  to  be 
saved. 

5.  In  Christ  Jesus,  of  the  mere  will  and  purpose  of 
God,  some  men  are  elected  and  not  others,  to  salvation. 

6.  The  predestinated  are  called  by  the  word  and 
Spirit. 

7.  They  are  justified  by  faith  (not  by  the  merit  of 
works),  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  shall  be  glori- 
fied in  the  life  to  come. 

8.  The  consideration  of  predestination  is  to  the  godly 
full  of  sweet,  pleasant  and  unspeakable  comfort.* 

How  sad  to  think  that  Archbishop  Bancroft  had  no 
such  enlightened  advisers  as  Van  Deusen,  F.  S.  Mines 
and  others ! 

Can  any  one  doubt,  taking  into  view  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  time,  place,  and  ecclesiastical  relations  of  the 
author  and  patron  of  tliese  sentiments,  what  was  the 

*"FuU  of  sweet,  pleasant  and  unspeakable  comfort,"  i.  e., 
"  frowning  and  scowling  npon.tlie  sons  of  men  ;"  "  wetting  the 
earth  with  tears." 


Cat>vinism  of  the  Akticles. 


33 


prevailing  theology  of  the  church  of  which  they  were 
such  distinguished  members  and  ministers  ?  This  pub- 
lication was  in  1586,  and  nine  years  subsequently  ap- 
peared the  "  Lambeth  Articles,"  whose  author  was  Arch- 
bishop Whitgift,  the  great  persecutor  of  the  Puritans. 
Like  the  work  of  Kogers,  they  are  so  stern  in  their 
orthodoxy  that  few  Calvinists  of  the  present  day  would 
adopt  them  in  every  jot  and  tittle.  Yet  they  were  signed 
by  the  Archbishop  of  York,  and  Fletcher,  Bishop  of 
London,  and  when  completed,  "the  Lambeth  Articles  " 
were  sent  by  Archbishop  Whitgift  to  Cambridge,  and 
"  the  students  were  enjoined  strictly  to  conform  to  them, 
there  having  been  previously  vented  some  contrary 
doctrines  which  had  given  cause  of  alarm  to  the  eccle- 
siastical authorities."* 

Much  more  to  the  same  effect  might  be  added,  but 
these  testimonies  are  surely  sufficient  to  prove  the  har- 
mony of  "the  framers"  of  the  English  "Articles,"  with 
the  leading  Calvinistic  Reformers  of  the  continent. 
And  that  the  other  continental  divines  were  at  that 
date  unanimously  in  agreement  with  the  sentiments  of 
Calvin,  is  conceded  by  Milner,  the  historian  of  the 
church.  "In  the  origin  of  the  terms  'Helvetic  and 
Calvinistic  denomination,'  "  he  says,  "  as  distinguished 
from  the  Lutheran,  there  really  existed  no  material  dif- 
ference of  sentiment,"  *****  "  gg  far  as  the 
recovery  of  the  lost  image  of  God  in  this  world  and 
eternal  salvation  in  the  next,  &c."t  He  then  states  one 
difference,  viz.,  "  the  dispute  concerning  the  manner  in 
which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present  in  the 
eucharLst,  which  at  length  terminated  in  the  fatal  di- 
vision of  those  sincere  friends  of  Reformation."  This 
was  the  fatal  topic  of  discord,  but  in  the  great  leading 
doctrines,  the  Confession  of  Switzerland  or  Helvetia,  in- 
cluding Geneva,  was  entirely  acceptable  to  the  early 
Lutherans.  Such  is  the  testimony  of  a  learned  Episco- 
pal divine.    It  would  be  easy  to  quote  largely  from  the 

*  Those  who  have  not  access  to  these  Articles  in  Bishop  Short's 
History,  nor  in  Goode  on  Baptism,  may  see  them  in  Buck's  Theo- 
logical Dictionary,  Art.  "  Lambeth  Articles." 

f  Milner  waa  Dean  of  Carlisle,  and  President  of  Queen's  Col- 
lege, Cambridge. 


34 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


writings  of  Luther  to  prove  that  in  all  the  great  dis- 
tinctive "doctrines  of  grace"  he  in  all  important  points 
agreed  with  the  illustrious  Reformer  of  Geneva.* 

Besides  this  conclusive  evidence,  we  invite  attention 
to  a  discussion  of  the  same  subject,  by  a  learned  and 
distinguished  author,  an  Episcopal  clergyman  of  Lon- 
don, the  Eev.  William  Goode.f  In  chapter  3  of  his 
valuable  work  on  "  Baptism,"  he  institutes  the  inquiry  : 
"  To  what  school  of  theology  did  our  Reformers  and 
early  divines  belong  ?"  "  I  believe  it  to  be  undeniable," 
he  says,  "  that  their  doctrine  was  in  the  most  important 
points  Calvinistic."  This  statement  he  abundantly 
proves  by  an  elaborate  induction  of  particulars.  Com- 
mencing with  Cranmer  (the  author  of  tlie  "Articles"),  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  he  piles  fact  upon  fact  and 
quotation  upon  quotation,  through  near  a  hundred 
pages,  proving  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  Rid- 
ley, Jewel,  Parker,  Latimer,  Philpot,  Grindal,  Horn, 
Parkhurst,  Whitgift,  Bancroft,  in  a  word,  all  the  lead- 
ing divines  who  established  the  Reformation  in  England, 
held  and  taught  "  the  most  thoroughly  Calvihistic  views 
of  doctrine  on  all  the  prominent  points,"  such  as  pre- 
destination_  election,  final  perseverance,  &c. 

The  following  extracts  are  from  the  examination  by 
the  Papists,  of  Philpot  the  martyr,  under  Queen  Mary, 
"  Bloody  Mary  :"  "  Which  of  you,"  says  Philpot,  "  is 
able  to  answer  Calvin's  Institutions  ?"  "  In  the  matter 
of  predestination,  he  is  of  none  other  opinion  than  all 
the  doctors  of  the  church  be,  agreeing  to  the  Scriptures." 
"  I  allow  the  church  of  Geneva  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
same — it  is  una,  catholica  et  apostoliea,  and  doth  follow 
the  doctrine  the  apostles  did  preach  ;  and  the  doctrine 
taught  in  King  Edward's  day,  was  also  according  to  the 
same." 

*  Bishop  Grindal  writes  to  a  friend  on  the  continent  (1562; : 
"  It  is  astonishing  that  they  are  raising  such  a  commotion  about 
predestination  !  They  should,  at  least,  consult  their  own  Luther 
on  'the  Bondage  of  the  Will.'  For  what  else  do  Bucer,  Calvin 
and  Martyr  teach,  that  Luther  has  not  maintained  in  that  trea- 
tise ?" 

t  See  also  Eev.  Augustus  Topladys  Works,  pp.  124-158. 


Agreement  with  Puritans. 


35 


Heal'  next  Thomas  Beacon,  chaplain  to  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  and  appointed  by  him  one  of  the  six  preach- 
ers at  Canterbury.  Among  many  testimonies  in  his 
"  Commonplaces  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  published  in 
1562,  are  these:  "That  God's  election  is  certain  and 
unchangeable."  "  That  God's  election  is  free  and  un- 
deserved."   "  That  God's  elect  cannot  perish." 

So  in  "  the  Short  Catechism  of  Edward  VI,"  set  forth 
by  royal  authority  and  subscribed  (1553)  by  both  Rid- 
ley and  Cranmer :  "  As  many  as  are  in  tbis  faith  stead- 
fast, were  forechosen,  predestinate  and  appointed  to 
everlasting  life,  before  the  world  was  made." 

Next  hear  Archbishop  Grindal,  Parker's  successor  in 
the  See  of  Canterbury.  Writing  to  BuUinger  (1566), 
in  speaking  of  the  Helvetic  Confession,  including  Ge- 
neva itself,  he  says :  '-'  The  pure  doctrine  of  the  gospel 
remained  (in  England)  in  all  its  integrity  and  freedom, 
in  which,  even  to  this  day,  we  most  fully  agree  with  your 
churches  and  with  the  confession  you  have  lately  set  forth." 
Oh  !  for  the  wisdom  of  High  Churchism  to  correct  such 
horrid  sentiments! 

To  the  same,  Horn,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  writes, 
1563  :  "  We  have  throughout  England  the  same  ecclesi- 
astical doctrine  as  yourselves."  And  to  the  same  BuUin- 
ger, author  of  the  Helvetic  Confession,  Parkhurst, 
Bishop  of  Norwich,  writes,  1574:  "That  Confession  of 
true  religion  which  you  published  in  1566,  is  now  read 
in  English,  and  in  the  hands  of  every  one." 

Speaking  of  the  Puritans  in  Elizabeth's  reign  (1573), 
Pilkington,  Bishop  of  Durham,  says  :  "  The  doctrine 
alone  they  leave  untouched ;"  and  Bridges,  Dean  of 
Salisbury,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Oxford,  says :  "  The 
controversies  betwixt  us  and  our  brethren  (the  Puritans), 
are  matters,  or  rather  (as  they  call  them),  but  manners 
of  the  church's  regiment,"  i.  e.,  of  church  government, 
not  doctrine. 

Hear  also  Whitgift,  the  author  of  the  "  Lambeth 
Articles:"  "  There  are  two  kinds  of  government  in  the 
church  ;  the  one  invisible,  the  other  visible ;  the  one 
spiritual,  the  other  external.  The  invisible  and  spirit- 
ual government  is  when  God,  by  his  Spirit,  gifts  and 


36  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


ministry  of  the  word,  doth  govern,  it,  by  ruling  in  the 
hearts  and  consciences  of  men  and  directing  them  in  all 
things  necessary  to  everlasting  life.  This  kind  of  gov- 
ernment indeed,  is  necessary  to  salvation,  and  it  is  in  the 

CHURCH  OF  THE  ELECT  ONLY." 

Many  pages  of  similar  passages  might  be  copied  from 
Mr.  Goode's  work — but  we  must  forbear.  The  conclusion 
to  which  this  eminent  Episcopal  clergyman  arrives  is 
this :  "  The  prevalent  opinion  was  in  favor  of  what  is 
now  called  the  Calviuistic  view,  *  *  *  *  ^hich 
our  early  divines  would  have  called  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine." 

"  I  ought  not  to  forget,"  he  adds,  "  to  direct  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader  to  the  fact  that  four  representatives  of 
our  (the  established)  church  were  sent  by  public  authority 
to  the  Synod  of  Dort  in  1619,  and  gave  their  unanimous 
testimony  as  such  representatives,  in  favor  of  the  system 
of  doctrine  there  agreed  to."  Bishop  Carleton,  one  of 
these  representatives,  is  then  quoted,  affirming  it  to  have 
been  "  the  open  confession  both  of  the  bishops  and  Puri- 
tans (of  England)  that  both  parts  embraced  a  mutual 
consent  in  doctrine  ;  the  only  difference  was  in  matter  of 
conformity." 

Well  might  the  learned  historian  Mosheim  say,  that 
"  after  the  death  of  Henry  VIII,  the  universities,  schools 
and  churches  became  the  oracles  of  Calvinism.  *  * 
Hence,  in  the  reign  ol  Edward  VI,  when  it  was  proposed 
to  give  a  fixed  and  stable  form  to  the  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  church,  Geneva  was  acknowledged  as  a 
sister  church,  and  the  theological  system  of  Calvin  was 
adopted  and  rendered  the  public  ruling  faith  in  Eng- 
land."* Hume  bears  the  same  testimony .f  "Calvin- 
ism," says  Mr.  Goode,  "  was  the  univei-sally  received  doc- 
trine of  our  (the  established)  church  in  Elizabeth's 
days."    "  Horrid  and  blasphemous  opinions." 

"From  the  establishment,"  adds  Mr.  Goode,  "of  the 
present  formularies  of  our  church  (the  XXXIX  Ar- 
ticles and  the  Prayer  Book)  down  to  1595,  the  doctrine 
now  called  Calvinism,  on  the  points  of  election,  predes- 


Hist.  Cent.  XVI. 


t  Vol.  VI,  p.  271. 


The  Church  Flooded  with  Calvinism.  37 


tination  and  final  perseverance,  was  the  almost  uni- 
versal doctrine  of  our  divines,  and  consequently  is  most 
in  accordance  with  those  formularies — unless  the  men 
who  established  them  voluntarily  made  them  such  as 
they  could  not  themselves  conscientioushj  subscribe!"  "Is 
it  credible,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  *  *  * 
that  they  established  such  as  they  could  not  themselves 
honestly  subscribe,  or  even  such  as  did  not  favor  their 
views.  The  question  so  completely  answers  itself  that 
it  is  almost  absurd  to  propose  it." 

We  have  room  for  only  one  other  source  of  evidence. 
Mr.  Goode's  admirable  book  is  directed  against  the 
Puseyite  or  tractarian  notion,  viz.,  as  he  states  it,  "  that 
spiritual  regeneration  is  always,  ex  opere  operato,  conferred 
upon  infants  in  their  baptism.  "  The  contrast,"  he  says, 
"  between  such  a  doctrine  (universal  and  unconditional 
regeneration  in  infant  baptism,)  and  the  theological  sys- 
tem of  our  early  divines,  reduces  it  to  an  absurdity." 
Those  eminent  men  of  God  were  Calvinists — and  of  course 
held  no  such  Papistical  dogma. 

But  to  place  this  reasoning  beyond  all  suspicion  of 
doubt,  Mr.  Goode  quotes  the  testimony  of  the  leading 
tractarian  periodic  il,  the  British  Critic*  "Cranmer 
and  his  associates,"  the  Critic  tells  us,  *  *  *  "  ^fQ-ce 
obliged  to  bow  to  the  master  mind  of  Calvin."  "  But 
for  the  death  of  Edward  VI,  compliance  with  the  for- 
eigners (Bucer,  Peter  Martyr  and  others)  would,  so  far 
as  we  can  judge,  have  swamped  the  English  Church  in 
one  general  alliance  with  Calvinism."  "The  whole 
church,  from  one  end  to  the  other,  was  flooded  with  the 
pemdiar  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  absolute  election,  repro- 
bation, and  the  rest  of  the  five  points.  They  gained  pos- 
session of  both  universities."  *  *  *  "  Oxford  was 
the  very  focus  of  Geneva  influence,  and  its  doctors  and 
professors  were  Calvinistic  preachers,  its  colleges  and 
halls  were  seminaries  of  Calvinism."  *  *  *  «  All 
THE  WORLD  WERE  Calvtnists,  and  there  was  no  one 
else  to  whom  Elizabeth  could  give  the  places." 

^  For  October,  1842. 


38  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Again,  says  the  Critic :  "  Laud  found  Oxford  a  sem- 
inary of  Calvinism."  "  Tiie  Laudian  school  (i.  e.,  the 
Arminian  and  High  Church  school,)  -was  clearly  a  new 
DEVELOPMENT  of  the  church  in  his  day ;  he  and  his 
party  were  innovators."  "  The  full  development  of  Cal- 
vinism was  stopped  indeed,  but  its  peculiar  doctrines 
remained  the  theology  of  the  church  until  Laud  upset 
them."  "Ours,"  adds  this  Puseyite  Critic,  "was  in 
spirit  A  Calvinistic  reformation  ;  and  a  noble  epis- 
copate (that  of  Laud)  afterwards  reclaimed  us." 

"  This  witness,"  remarks  Mr.  Goode,  "  is  true."  "  It 
is  the  confession  of  an  adversary,  that  in  matters  of  doc- 
trine the  original  '  church  principles'  (the  39  Articles, 
too,)  of  our  Reformed  Church  were  those  which  are  now 
railed  at  under  the  names  of  Puritanism  and  Calvinism." 
Such,  by  the  confession  of  an  extreme  High  Church  pe- 
riodical, were  the  men  who  drew  up  and  subscribed  the 
XXXIX  Articles,  and  composed  and  authorized  the 
Prayer  Book.  Even  Queen  Elizabeth,  whose  love  for 
forms  and  pomp  and  show  in  religion  was  notorious, 
was  entirely  cordial  in  the  adoption  of  "  the  Lambeth 
Articles,"  drawn  up  in  1595  by  the  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, assisted  by  Fletcher,  Bishop  of  Bristol,  Vaughan 
of  Bangor,  Tyndal  of  Ely,  and  some  others.  These 
Lambeth  Articles  are  quite  as  strong  Calvinism,  espe- 
cially in  the  doctrines  of  predestination  and  election,  as 
anything  in  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith ; 
though  teaching  more  at  large  the  same  system  as  the 
1 7th  Article  of  the  Prayer  Book  before  quoted. 

Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that,  in  this  country,  the 
39  Articles  of  the  Prayer  Book  were  "  established  by 
the  bishops,  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  convention,  1801."  Also,  that  every 
priest  is  required,  at  his  ordination,  "  to  promise  to  min- 
ister THE  DOCTRINE  and  sacrameuts  *  *  *  as  this 
church  hath  received  the  same,  *  *  *  and  to  teach'the 
people  with  all  diligence  to  keep  and  observe  the  same." 
Yet  such  "  priests  "  as  Van  Deusen  and  Mines  ai'e  found 
stigmatizing,  in  the  most  offensive  terms,  the  very  doc- 
trines taught  in  their  own  Prayer  Book  ! 

To  all  this  multiplied  evidence  of  the  original  Cal- 


Views  of  Macaulay. 


39 


vinism  of  the  Chui'ch  of  England,  we  add  that  of  the 
prince  of  modern  historians.  Of  that  church  says  Ma- 
caulay :  "  The  doctrinal  confessions  and  discourses, 
composed  by  Protestants,  set  forth  principles  of  theol- 
ogy in  which  Calvin  or  Knox  would  have  found  scarcely 
a  word  to  disapprove."  "  A  controversialist  who  puts  an 
Arminian  sense  on  her  Articles,  will  be  pronounced  by 
candid  men  to  be  as  unreasonable  as  he  who  denies  that 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  can  be  discovered 
in  the  liturgy." 

Again  :  "  The  doctrines  held  by  the  chiefs  of  the 
English  hierarchy  touching  original  sin,  faith,  grace,  pre- 
destination and  election,  were  those  which  are  popularly 
called  Calvinistic.  Towards  the  close  of  Elizabeth's  reign, 
her  favorite  prelate.  Archbishop  Whitgift,  drew  up,  in 
concert  with  other  theologians,  the  celebrated  instru- 
ment known  as  '  the  Lambeth  Articles,'  in  which  the 
most  startling  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  are  affirmed 
with  a  distinctness  which  would  shock  many  in  our  age, 
who  are  reputed  Calvinists." 

And  who  was  the  man,  and  what  his  character,  who, 
in  the  next  century,  according  to  the  "British  Critic," 
reformed,  or  attempted  to  reform,  the  English  Church 
hack  to  Arminianisra  and  Popery  ?  Of  Archbishop  Laud 
Macaulay  draws  the  following  portrait :  "  Of  all  the 
prelates  of  the  Anglican  Church,  Laud  had  departed 
farthest  from  the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  and  had 
drawn  nearest  to  Rome.  His  theology  was  even  more 
remote  than  even  that  of  the  Dutch  Arminians  from 
the  theology  of  the  Calvinists.  His  passion  for  ceremo- 
nies, his  reverence  for  holidays,  for  vigils  and  sacred 
places,  &c.,  made  him  an  object  of  aversion  to  the  Puri- 
tans." "  His  understanding  was  narrow.  *  *  He 
was  by  nature  rash,  irritable,  quick  to  feel  for  his  own 
dignity,  slow  to  sympathize  with  the  sufferings  of  others, 
and  prone  to  the  error  common  with  supei-stitious  men, 
of  mistaking  his  own  peevish  and  malignant  moods  for 
emotions  of  pious  zeal.  Under  his  direction,  every  cor- 
ner of  the  realm  was  subjected  to  a  constant  and  minute 
inspection.  Every  little  congregation  of  separatists  was 
broken  up.    Even  the  devotions  of  private  families 


40 


High  Church  Eplscx)pacy. 


could  not  escape  the  vigilance  oi  his  spies.  Such  fear 
did  his  rigor  iuspire,  that  the  deadly  hatred  of  the  An- 
glican Church,  which  festered  in  innumerable  bosoms, 
was  generally  disguised  under  an  outward  show  of  con- 
formity." 

The  success  of  this  bad  man,  in  giving  the  English 
Church  an  Arminiau,  High  Church  and  Popish  charac- 
ter, was  very  great.  "It  was  such,"  Mr.  Goode  ac- 
knowledges, "  as  completely  to  overwhelm  for  the  time 
the  influence  of  the  school  of  the  Reformers  (of  the  pre- 
vious century),  and  turn  the  current  of  theology  into  a 
very  different  channel."  The  recent  outgrowth  of  Pu- 
seyism  in  the  Establishment  and  in  this  country,  and  the 
spread  of  Popery  in  Episcopal  ranks,  are  legitimate  fruits 
of  Laudism.  Yet  he  is  sometimes  called  "  the  blessed 
martyr." 

We  are  thus  foi-ced  to  the  conclusion  that  Calvinism, 
which  such  clergymen  as  Van  Denser  Mines  and  others 
style  "that  false  doctrine,  heresy  and  schism,"  *"  the  moth- 
er of  a  miserable  brood  of  schisms,"  was  the  very  doctrine 
of  "  the  Church  of  England  "  at  the  period  of  her  ref- 
ormation from  Popery — was  the  cherished  doctrine  of 
her  Protestant  sovereigns,  and  of  those  great  men,  arch- 
bishops, bishops  and  priests,  who  were  appointed  to  set- 
tle her  doctrinal  foundations,  and  present  her  to  the 
acceptance  and  admiration  of  the  whole  world.  There 
stand  the  recorded  monuments  of  their  wisdom,  piety 
and  orthodoxy,  in  "  the  XXXIX  Articles "  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  both  of  the  English  and  American  church. 
And  must  it  not  be  a  sad  evidence  of  the  low  tone  of 
"  morals  and  religion  "  in  the  body,  when  gross  and 
avowed  Arminians,  decided  Pelagians,  and  even  notori- 
ous Socinians  and  Arians,  subscribe  to  those  Articles 
without  hesitation,  and  are  permitted  to  enjoy  quietly, 
through  a  long  life,  the  reward  of  such  perfidy.  In  the 
days  of  Cranmer,  such  sentiments,  if  openly  avowed  by 
their  author.-;,  would  in  all  probability  have  led  them 
to  the  itake. 

It  is  as  "a  safeguard  against  (such)  erroneous  and  heret- 
*  See  "  The  Presbyterian  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,"  p.  60. 


Calvinism  the  Sense  of  the  Fkamers. 


41 


ical  opinions,"  says  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  that  "  the 
Articles  "  are  required  to  be  subscribed-;  and  "  the  legit- 
imate mode  of  interpreting  them,"  adds  the  Bishop  of 
Ripon,  *  *  *  "is  the  sense  of  the  framees." 
The  sense  of  the  Convocation  of  1571"  (when  Eliza- 
beth, by  law,  required  subscription),  "  must  have  been 
the  sense  of  both  (the  civil  and  ecclesiastical)  legisla- 
tures," adds  the  Bishop  of  Exeter.  To  say  that  men  are 
authorized  to  construe  those  articles  in  a  Romish,  Socin- 
ian,  Arian  or  Arminian  sense,  and  subscribe  them  as 
bearing  such  a  sense,  is  a  most  criminal  trifling  with  the 
obligations  of  truth  and  honesty.  Yet  such  are  "  the 
morality  and  religion  "  of  "  High  Churchism  ! "  How 
much  more  unity  of  sentiment  there  is  in  this  country 
than  in  the  mother  church,  deplorable  and  humiliating 
facts  too  plainly  testify.  (See,  for  example,  the  books  of 
Van  Deusen  and  Mines.) 

As  a  legitimate  fruit  of  this  lax  morality,  such  "  apos- 
tolic "  priests  of  the  English  Church  as  Pusey,  Newman 
and  Froude  published  the  Tracts  for  the  Times  and  other 
works  denouncing  the  Reformation  from  Popery  as  "  a 
desperate  remedy  for  the  diseases  of  the  church,  and  a 
fearjid  judgment  upon  her  " — alleging  that  "  certain  lit- 
urgies are  of  apostolic  origin,"  *  *  and  "  the  canon 
of  the  mass  ("that  blasphemous  fable  and  dangerous  de- 
ceit," Art.  31,)  is  found  in  one  of  these  liturgies,  called 
"the  Liturgy  of  St.  Peter."  They  declare  that  "the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  foith,"  (as  held  by  Luther, 
Calvin,  Cranmer  and  others,)  is  "  monstrous,  immoral, 
heretical  and  anti-christian  " — "  a  heresy,  than  which 
none  other  is  so  subtile  and  extensively  poisonous,"  &c. 
These  are  specimens  of  the  teaching  of  men  who  have 
"  professed  to  subscribe  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  willingly 
and  ex  animo,"  and  "  when  licensed  to  any  charge  de- 
clare their  unfeigned  assent  to  those  Articles."*  Several 
of  these  writers  afterwards  became  Papists,  but  while 
publishing  such  sentiments  they  continued  quietly  to  eat 
the  bread  of  the  Established  Church.  But  we  are  told 
"  the  Church  of  England  wrote  articles,  not  in  her 

*  See  Bricknell's  "  Judgment  of  the  Bishops,"  for  the  foregoing 
extracts  from  the  Puseyites. 

5 


42  High  Church  EpiscoPAcnt'. 


creed,  but  in  another  place,  simply  to  explain  what  she  had 
done."*  But  why,  then,  did  Elizabeth  and  her  bishops 
enforce  subscription  by  positive  law  ?  And  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  extracts  from  the  charges  of  bishops  and 
high  dignitaries  quoted  above  ?  Does  not  Dr.  Hook 
know  what  he  is  talking  about  ?t  A  man  who  is  "  look- 
ing for  the  church"  ought  to  have  better  eye-sight,  or 
he  will  prove  a  "  blind  leader  of  the  blind." 

In  England,  under  all  the  restraints  of  subscription, 
the  church  has  become  a  sort  of  Noah's  ark,  only  not 
for  safety.  She  is  infested  with  divers  sorts  of  heretical 
opinions,  some  of  them  directly  subversive  of  the  very 
foundations  of  the  true  faith  as  taught  by  Cranmer, 
Ridley,  Hooper,  Grindal,  "  the  framers  of  the  articles," 
and  embodied  therein.  And  in  this  country,  where  it 
would  appear  there  is  only  an  indirect  verbal  subscrip- 
tion to  the  Articles  at  ordination,  who  can  compute  the 
probable  laxity  of  sentiment,  the  wide-spread  desola- 
tions of  dangerous  error  ? 

"  Still  I  sighed  for  unity."  "  I  panted  for  a  unity."  | 
Yes,  and  after  long  "  looking,"  he  found  it  in  such  a 
church  as  this  of  the  Episcopal  order !  "A  unity  "  which, 
as  Macaulay  has  well  said,  "  consists  of  a  bundle  of 
religious  systems  without  number — the  religious  system 
of  Bishop  Tomline  and  that  of  John  Newton,  and  all 
the  religious  systems  that  lie  between  them.  Is  it  not 
mere  mockery,"  he  adds,  "  to  attach  so  much  importance 
to  unity  in  form  and  name  where  there  is  so  little  in 
substance — to  shudder  at  the  thought  of  tivo  churches  in 
alliance  with  one  state,  and  to  endure  with  patience  the 
spectacle  of  a  hundred  sects  battling  within  one  church.'"\\ 
Well  may  he  add  that  "  whether  Calvin  or  Arminius  be 
right  (Cranmer  or  Laud,  or  Clark  the  Arian,  or  Colenso 

*  Looking  for  the  Church,  p.  273. 

t  Dr.  Hook  gives  the  act  of  subscription  to  the  Thirty-nine  Ar- 
ticles '■  by  all  persons  who  are  to  be  ordained,"  as  follows  :  "  I  do 
willingly  and  from  my  heart  subscribe  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
of  religion  of  the  Church  of  England  and  Ireland,"  &c.  See  his 
Church  Dictionary,  Art.  Orders.  This  looks  like  "  writing  the 
articles  as  her  creed." 

X  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,  p.  267. 

II  Review  of  Gladstone,  Edinburgh  Eeview. 


Many  Sects  in  one  Chuech. 


43 


be  right),  one  set  or  other  of  their  followers  teach  a 
great  deal  of  false  doctrine."  And  the  same  conclusion 
follows  if  we  substitute  such  names  of  the  American 
Episcopacy  as  Mcllvaine,  Johns  and  others  in  opposition 
to  Onderdonk,  Doane  and  their  "  apostolic  success- 
ors." * 

A  curious  illustration  of  the  whole  argument  appears 
in  one  of  the  journals,  as  follows :  "An  argument  for 
the  '  Abolition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,'  has  been 
printed  by  an  English  Ritualist.  The  writer  shows  that 
their  authors  were  Calvinists  ;  and  the  fact  that  Church- 
men are  agreed  in  repudiating  Calvinism,  makes  their 
presence  in  the  Prayer  Book  a  scandal  and  a  reason  for 
getting  rid  of  them." 

*  Toplady,  as  before  quoted,  describes  Episcopal  "unity,"  and  as 
an  Episcopal  minister  he  knew  what  he  said:  "We  pray,  we  sub- 
scribe, we  assent  one  way ;  we  believe,  we  preach,  we  write  an- 
other." "  We  tag  the  performance  with  fragments  bequeathed  to 
us  by  Pelagius  and  Arminius,  not  to  say  by  Arim,  Socmus  and  by 
others  still  worse  than  they."  "  Is  there  a  single  heresy  that  ever  an- 
noyed tiie  Christian  world  which  has  not  its  partisans  among 
those  who  profess  conformity  to  the  Church  of  England  ?  "  ( Wks. 
p.  275.)  This  is  the  sort  of  "  unity  "  for  which  Kev.  F.  S.  Mines 
sighed  and  panted,  and  after  long  "  looking,"  be  found  it ! 


44  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

DOCTRINAI.  DIFFICULTIES — JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH — 
ORIGINAL  SIN — HOW  SUBSCRIBED  BY  AN  ARMINIAN 
CLERGY. 

We  are  investigating  the  "difficulties"  of  the  Calvin- 
istic  Articles  of  the  Prayer  Book,  especially  as  subscribed 
by  "an  Arminian  clergy."  The  Pittsburgh  "Rector" 
■warns  the  people  against  "  individual  election  and  rep- 
robation," as  of  "  the  unpopular  tenets  of  Calvinism," 
and  "  not  adapted  to  disseminate  religion  throughout  the 
land."  But  if  language  has  any  precise  and  definite 
meaning,  his  own  system  embodies  these  very  objection- 
able doctrines.  This  was  unquestionably  the  view  of  the 
early  "  framers  of  the  Articles,"  and  of  those  who  gave 
his  church  its  form.  If  "  the  predestined  to  salvation 
cannot  perish,  but  shall  be  glorified,"  &c.,  as  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Rogers,  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Bancroft,*  in 
common  with  the  leading  clergy  of  that  and  previous 
periods,  interpret  the  17th  Article,  this  is  high  Calvinism. 
"  The  language,"  remarks  the  judicious  Calvinist  and 
Episcopalian,  Dr.  Scott,  "  is  special  and  personal."  "  The 
calling  described  in  the  17th  Article"  (*  *)  is  insepa- 
rably connected  with  being  justified  and  glorified ;  for 
in  other  senses  of  the  word,  '  many  are  called,  but  few 
chosen.'  "  And  if  Christ,  the  final  judge,  knows  with 
infallible  certainty  the  precise  individuals,  by  name  and 
by  number,  who  "  shall  be  glorified  " — knows,  too,  with 
unerring  prescience,  his  own  judicial  act  by  which  they 
will  be  adjudged  to  eternal  life — this  is  "  individual 

*  The  Arclibishop  enjoined  "  that  a  copy  of  Rogers'  '  Exposi- 
tion of  the  Articles '  should  be  bought  for  every  parish  in  the 
province  of  Canterbury." 


Justification  by  Faith. 


45 


election ;"  and  in  the  divine  foreknowledge  there  is 
equal  certainty  as  to  the  individual  names  and  numbers 
of  the  non-elected,  and  of  the  final  act  of  the  judge — 
"  Depart  from  me ;  I  never  knew  you."  Yet  Christ 
says,  '■  I  kt%ow  my  sheep — they  shall  never  perish." 

We  now  turn  to  another  of  these  forms  of  Calvinistic 
truth. 

The  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  in  the  exclu- 
sive merits  of  Christ,  is  well  stated  in  the  Xlth  Article 
of  the  Prayer  Book  :  "  We  are  accounted  righteous  be- 
fore God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  de- 
servings.  Wherefore,  that  we  are  justiiied  by  faith  only, 
is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort." 
Of  this  article,  and  others  relating  to  the  same  topic, 
"  Cranmer  was  the  sole  compiler ;"  "  nor  were  there 
any  material  changes  made  under  Elizabeth."*  From 
that  period  (1551)  till  the  close  of  her  reign  in  1603,  we 
have  demonstrated,  what  its  enemies  themselves  affirm, 
the  decided  Calvinism  of  all  the  leading  men  of  the  An- 
glican Church.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  this  Article, 
having  been  composed  by  Calvinisls,  and  required  to  be 
subscribed  by  Calvinists  acting  by  authority  of  law, 
must  have  been  meant  to  be  taken  in  a  Calvinistic 
sense. 

To  render  the  meaning  still  more  evident,  the  13th 
Article  is  "  of  works  done  before  justification  " — which 
denies  them  all  efficacy  "  to  make  men  meet  to  receive 
grace,  or  deserve  grace  of  congruity,"  because  "  they  are 
not  pleasant  to  God,  forasmucli  as  they  spring  not  of 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  have  the  nature  of  sin."  The 
12th  Article,  in  like  manner,  speaks  of  ''  works  which 
are  the  fruits  of  faith  and  follow  after  justification,"  but 
which  "  cannot  put  away  our  sins,"  though  '■  they  spring 
out  necessarily  of  a  true  and  lively  faith;"  and  "by 
them  a  lively  faith  may  be  as  evidently  known  as  a  tree 
by  its  fruit."  Modern  Calvinists  and  Presbyterians  find 
scarcely  anything  objectionable  in  these  excellent  state- 
ments of  divine  truth. 

Very  different,  however,  is  the  doctrine  of  Popery  and 
*  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 


46  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


High  Churchism.  The  32d  Canon  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  pronounces  "accursed"  the  man  who  shall  say 
that  a  person  justified  by  good  works  which  are  done 
by  him  through  the  grace  of  God  and  the  merit  of 
Christ,  does  not  truly  deserve  increase  of  grace,  eternal 
life,"  &c.  And  further,  Romanists  teach  that  "  such 
good  works  are  necessary — ad  erpianda  peccata — to  expi- 
ate our  sins,  appease  God,  and  obtain  eternal  life." 
Thus  justification,  i.  e.,  the  pardon  of  the  sinner  and  his 
acceptance  as  righteous  before  God,  in  the  Romish 
scheme,  is  partly  through  the  merits  and  righteousness 
of  Christ,  and  partly  by  his  own  deserts  ! 

I  cheerfully  concede  that  High  Churchism,  even  in  ita 
later  development  into  Puseyism,  has  not  sunk  quite  so 
low  as  this,  except  in  a  few  instances.  Yet  no  enlight- 
ened Christian  can  read  such  works  as  Bishop  Tom- 
line's  "  Refutation  of  Calvinism,"  without  perceiving 
that  he  stands  upon  the  same  common  ground  with  Ro- 
manism— that  he  has  no  clear  views  of  the  exact  scrip- 
tural sense  of  "justification  by  faith  without  the  merit 
of  works,"  and  that  he  constantly  confounds  it  with 
sanctification.  Thus  "  the  works  which  he  (Paul)  rejects 
from  any  share  in  justification,  are  the  ceremonial  works 
of  the  law."  Of  James,  it  is  added,  "  He  means  not 
ceremonial,  but  moral  works ;  *  *  and  even  to  these  he 
(the  Apostle  James)  does  not  attribute  the  whole  of 
justification."* 

In  these  and  many  similar  statements  in  Tomline's 
"  Refutation  of  Calvinism,"  we  have  the  seed  of  the  sys- 
tem which  Newman  and  Pusey  have  nurtured  into  full 
growth.  The  contrast  between  the  doctrine  of  the  "Ar- 
ticles '"  and  that  of  High  Church  theology,  is  well  stated 
by  Bishop  Mcllvaine :  "  That  on  which  ice  rely  for  all 
hope  of  present  mercy  and  final  acceptance,  is  exclusively 
the  righteousness  (active  and  passive  obedience)  of 
Christ.  To  them  (the  Puseyites)  justification  consists  in 
being  made  personally  holy.  To  m,  it  consists  in  being 
*  accounted  righteous '  (Art.  XI),  through  the  obedi- 
ence and  death  of  our  Redeemer.    They  (the  Puseyites) 

*  BefutatioD  of  Calvinism,  p.  120. 


Justification  by  Works.  47 


satisfy  the  law  (in  part  at  least)  by  their  own  obedience ; 
we  have  no  hope  of  its  fulfilment  and  satisfaction  on  our 
behalf,  but  as  it  received  its  full  demand  in  the  obedi- 
ence of  our  divine  Surety.  They  look  to  it  (the  merit 
or  righteousness  of  Christ)  not  for  direct  acceptance 
with  God,  but  for  the  power  of  divine  grace  to  enable 
the)n  so  to  work  and  walk,  that  in  themselves  they  shall 
be  acceptable."  It  is  well  added,  "  that  as  to  the  matter 
and  essence  of  the  medicine  whereby  Christ  cureth  our 
disease,  we  are  as  wide  apart  as  two  opposite  descrip- 
tions of  remedy  can  make  us."*  According  to  High 
Church  or  Popish  Arminianism,  our  justification  de- 
pends on  the  performance  on  our  part  of  certain  merito- 
rious conditions.  The  Scriptures  teach  that  all  condi- 
tions of  justification,  properly  so  called,  are  performed 
by  Christ.  "  Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of 
God's  elect  ?  Is  it  God  that  justifieth  ?  Who  is  he 
that  condemneth  ?  Is  it  Christ  that  died — yea,  rather, 
who  is  risen  again,  *  *  who  ever  maketh  intercession 
for  us  ?"   Rom.  8  :  33,  34. 

As  this  subject  has  always  been  'regarded  by  true 
Protestants  as  of  the  very  essence  of  Christianity — "  the 
doctrine  of  a  standing  or  a  falling  church,"  as  Luther 
expressed  it — it  deserves  a  careful  consideration.  "  The 
works  (says  Tomline  and  other  High  Church  men) 
which  Paul  rejects  from  any  share  in  justification,  are 
ceremonial,  not  moral  works  " — "  even  to  these  last,  the 
ajjostle  attributes  not  the  whole  of  justification."  Thus, 
as  stated  by  the  distinguished  Episcopalian,  George 
Stanly  Faber,  "man  is  justified  before  God  (in  the 
High  Church  Arminian  sense),  not  by  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  (exclusively),  but  by  an  intrinsic  righteousness, 
which  is  infused  into  him  by  God,  through  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Or,  as  stated  by  another  one  of 
themselves,  Mr.  Knox :  "  Our  being  reckoned  righteous 
before  God,  always  and  essentially  implies  a  substance  of 
righteousness  previously  implanted  in  us,  and  that  our 
reputative  justification  is  the  strict  and  inseparable  result 
of  righteousness,  on  which  this  reckoning  (accounting  us 

*  On  Oxford  Divinity,  p.  509-10. 


48 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


righteous)  is  founded."*  But  this,  as  Faber  well  replies, 
is  the  plain  "  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  i.  e., 
"justification  by  the  merit  of  our  own  inherent  right- 
eousness,"— a  doctrine  essentially  unscriptural  and  highly 
dangerous.''^  In  opposition  to  these  Komish  or  High 
Church  notions,  "  the  Articles  "  make  the  exclusive 
"  procuring  cause  of  righteousness  and  salvation,  to  be 
the  extrinsic  righteousness  of  Christ  appropriated  by 
the  hands  of  faith."| 

Justification,  therefore,  according  to  "  the  Articles," 
and  all  sound  Protestants,  is  being  "  accounted"  righteous 
before  God" — "a  relative  change  of  state,  not  a  personal 
change  of  nature."  In  the  personal  sense,  it  would  be 
opposed  to  unholiness ;  in  the  relative  sense ,  it  is  the  op- 
posite of  condemnation  :  the  one  would  take  away  moral 
pollution,  the  other  removes  judicial  guilt.  Justification 
"  by  an  infusion  of  righteouness,"  as  Romanists  term  it, 
is  nothing  difierent  from  sanctificalion  (which  is  one  of 
its  fruits),  and  therefore  as  Tomline  teaches,  it  is  said 
to  be  a  gradual  work,  often  interrupted,  frequently  lost 
and  regained,  and  never  complete  till  perfected  in  glory. 
"Which  of  these  is  the  scriptural  sense,  is  obvious  from 
such  passages  as  this:  "He  t\i2ii  justifieth  the  wicked, 
and  condemneth  the  just,  both  are  an  abomination  to 
the  Lord."  Here  the  terms  justify  and  condemn  are  op- 
posed to  each  other.  They  both  refer  to  judicial  acts. 
It  never  could  be  "  an  abomination  to  the  Lord  "  to  jus- 
tify the  wicked,  i.  e.,  to  make  him  personally  holy  by 
infusing  righteousness  !  Thus  also  reasons  the  apostle, 
Rom.  5:13:  "  As  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came 
on  all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justifi- 
cation of  life."  And  Paul  adds :  "  Who  shall  lay  any- 
thing to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  Is  it  God  that 
justijicthf  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?"  The  apostle 
certainly  does  not  speak  of  acts  of  the  judge,  inj'ming 

*  As  quoted  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  p.  46.  Knox  is  not  a  Trac- 

tarian,  but  an  ordinary  High  Church  man.  So  the  Bishop  tells 
us. 

t  Faber,  p.  49.  %  Ibid.,  p.  43. 


Christ  our  Eighteousness.  49 


either  righteousness  or  unrighteousness  into  the  elect ! 
The  whole  has  reference  to  judicial  pi-ocess,  the  pro- 
nouncing, declaring  and  accounting  persons  either  justi- 
fied and  acquitted,  or  condemned,  viewed,  accounted, 
treated  as  guilty.  Hence,  such  eminently  pious  men  as 
Bishops  Beveridge  and  Andrews,  and  "  the  judicious 
Hooker,"  speak  of  "  two  kinds  of  Christian  righteous- 
ness ;  the  one  without  us,  which  we  have  by  imputation, 
which  God  giveth  us — accepting  us  for  righteous  in 
Christ — the  other  in  us — whicli  he  giveth  by  working 
righteousness  (or  holiness)  in  us."  "  Justification  is  God's 
act  in  himself,  whereby  we  are  accounted  righteous  by 
him,  and  shall  be  so  declared  at  the  great  day."  This 
is  very  diflTerent  from  the  Tomline  doctrine,  that  moral 
works  have  "  a  share  in  justification  !"  Very  different 
the  Romish  doctrine  that  our  merits  have  a  part  in  our 
justification  before  God. 

Let  Cranmer,  the  author  of  the  Articles,  now  explain 
his  own  meaning.  On  the  exercise  of  living  and  saving 
faith,  he  says  :  God  doth  no  more  impute  unto  us  our 
former  sins,  but  he  doth  impute  and  give  unto  us  the 
justice  and  righteousnes  of  his  Son,  and  so  we  '  be 
counted  righteous,  for  as  much  as' — what ! — righteous- 
ness is  infused  into  lis  ?  No — but  "  no  man  dare  accuse 
us  for  that  sin  for  whicii  satisfaction  is  made  by  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ."*  And  in  his  Homily  on  the  sub- 
ject: "  So  that  Christ  is  now  the  righteousness  of  all 
them  that  truly  believe  in  him.  *  *  *  He  for  them 
fulfilled  the  law  in  his  life;  he  paid  their  ransom  by  his 
death.  So  that  now  by  him,  every  true  Christian  may 
be  called  a  fulfiller  of  the  law  ;  for  as  much  as  that 
which  their  infirmity  lacked,  Christ's  righteousness  hath 
supplied."  Thus  Cranmer  interprets  Paul,  "  Christ  is 
THE  END  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one 
that  believeth" — "  and  the  righteousness  of  the  law  is 
fulfilled  in  us."  "  Therefore,"  Cranmer  adds,  "  he 
that  believeth  in  Christ  *  *  *  jg  jyg^.  j^jj^j  l^olj  be- 
fore God."  How?"  By  infusion  of  holiness  ?  No!  but 
by  the  justice  (or  righteousness)  of  Christ,  which  is  im- 
puted and  given  unto  him,  as  Paul  saith — "  we  judge 
*  Cranruer's  Catechism,  Redemption. 


50  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


that  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  works.  "  Thus," 
as  Fisher  says,  "  Though  there  is  a  power  purg- 
ing the  corruption  of  sins,  which  foUoweth  upon  justifi- 
cation ;  yet  it  is  carefully  to  be  distinguished  from  it." 
So,  also,  Bishop  Andrews  speaks  of  the  two  kinds  of 
righteousness,  "  the  one  a  righteousness  reputed  or  ac- 
counted (as  to  Abraham),  and  the  other  a  righteousness 
done."  He  adds,  "  The  one  is  a  quality  of  the  party, 
the  other  an  act  of  the  judge,  declaring  or  pronouncing 
righteousness.  The  one  ours  by  influence  or  infusion 
(flowing  from  justification),  the  other  by  account  or  im- 
putation. That  both  these  exist,  there  is  no  question." 
The  one  justifies — the  other  sanctifies-  And  so,  also, 
Archbishop  Usher,  the  prince  of  Protestants  :  "  Thus 
God,  imputing  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  a  sinner, 
doth  not  account  his  sins  to  him,  but  interests  him  in  a 
state  of  as  full  and  perfect  freedom  and  acceptance,  as  if 
he  had  never  sinned  or  had  himself  fully  satisfied."  Hence 
flow  good  works  as  the  fruits. 

In  these  and  hundreds  of  similar  passages  written  by 
the  early  fathers  and  founders  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
we  gather  a  view  of  the  great  cardinal  doctrine  of  "jus- 
tification by  faith  only"— very  different  from  the  semi- 
popery  of  Tomline,  Knox  and  other  High  Church  Ar- 
minians.  As  the  latter  interpret  Paul,  "to  be  justified" 
is  not  simply  to  be  "  accounted  righteous,"  as  their  own 
Article  says — "  but  also  to  be  made  righteous  by  the  im- 
plantation of  a  i-adical principle  of  righteousness."  "It 
is  on  this  implanted  principle  that  our  being  reckoned 
RIGHTEOUSNESS  IS  FOUNDED."*  Thus,  iu  a  vcry  import- 
ant sense,  it  is  not  "God  that  justifieth" — but  man  is  en- 
abled to  justify  himself!  Man  must  first  be  made  righteom 
by  infusion — then  he  can  be  accounted  righteous  before 
God  !  But  if  this  be  true,  how  comes  it  that  the  objects 
of  justification  are  declared  in  Scripture  to  be  sinners 
and  ungodly?  What  can  be  more  express  than  the 
words  of  Paul :  "  To  him  that  (worketh  or  doeth  right- 
eousness) is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of 
debt :    But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeili  on 

*  See  the  quotation  in  Bishop  Mcllvaine  on  Oxford  Divinity, 
p.  46. 


High  Ciiu^  :h  Errors. 


51 


HIM  THAT  justipieth" — -whom  ?  High  Churchmen  re- 
ply :  "  Justifieth  him  who  is  made  righteous,  by  implant- 
ation of  a  radical  principle  of  righteousness  !"  Not  so 
Paul — "  believeth  in  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly." 
Even  as  David  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man 
unto  whom  God  -imputeth  righteousness  ivithout  works. 
Kom.  4 :  5-6.  "  To  justify  the  ungodly" — "  To  justify 
them  which  are  found  sinners" — "  To  justify  them  that 
are  without  works  !"  These  are  the  favorite  phrases  of 
the  inspired  Paul ;  and  they  certainly  give  no  counte- 
nance to  the  High  Church  notion  of  "  a  justification 
founded  on  an  implanted  principle  of  righteousness !" 
We  admit,  with  Dr.  Owen,  "  that  all  who  are  justified 
by  faith,  though  before  they  were  ungodlj^  are  at  the 
same  instant  regenerated  and  made  godly."  This 
is  the  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  sandification  begun, 
to  end  in  glorification — but  that  is  altogether  a  different 
thing  from  "  the  act  of  the  judge,  declaring  or  account- 
ing the  sinner  righteous" — as  Bishop  Andrews  expresses 
the  sense  of  the  11th  Article. 

Scarcely  less  unscriptural  and  absurd  are  the  views 
of  many  High  Churchmen  on  the  subject  of  "saving 
faith."  Thus  Bishop  Tomline  tells  us  that  "  the  Gen- 
tiles are  a  law  unto  themselves,  and  their  faith  consisted 
in  believing  that  a  compliance  with  that  law  was  accept- 
able to  the  Deity."  "  Thus,"  he  continues,  "  through 
the  merits  and  mediation  of  Christ,  *  *  *  every 
human  being  (heathen  as  well  as  Jew)  had  it  in  his  power 
to  please  God."  So  that  all  the  Gentile  idolater  had  to 
do,  was  to  believe  that  his  compliance  with  his  own  "ac- 
cusing or  excusing  conscience"  was  acceptable  to  God, 
and  he  was  justified.  If  he  continued  in  this  sort  of 
faith,  he  was  saved  by  the  merits  of  Christ !  And  this, 
too,  directly  in  contradiction  of  the  18th  Article  of  his 
own  creed,  viz.,  "  They  are  to  be  had  accursed  that  pre- 
sume that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect 
he  professes,  so  that  he  be  diligent  to  frame  his  life  ac- 
cording to  the  light  and  law  of  nature.  For  Scripture 
doth  set  out  unto  us  only  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  &c." 
But  if  Bishop  Tomline's  doctrine  be  true,  why  did  Paul 
severely  censure  the  Jews  for  "  forbidding  him  to  speak 


52  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


to  the  Gentiles,  that  they  might  be  saved  f"  They  could 
be  saved  without  any  such  speaking  to  them  !  See,  also, 
Rom.  10 :  13,  14 — where  "  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord"  is  made  to  depend  on  believing  in  him,  believ- 
ing to  depend  on  hearing,  and  hearing  on  the  preaching 
of  the  word.  Bishop  Tomline  has  certainly  discovered 
a  new  meaning  for  justifying  faith,  viz.,  "  believing  i\i2A 
compliance  with  the  law  of  conscience  is  acceptable  to 
God!" 

But  how  does  faith  justify  in  the  theological  scheme  of 
High  Churchmen?  "  Faith,"  says  Bishop  Bull,  as  quoted 
by  Tomline,  "  must  by  no  means  be  taken  for  a  single  and 
simple  virtue ;  for  in  its  circuit  it  comprises  all  the  works 
of  Christian  piety."  In  the  system  of  sound  Protestants, 
justifying  faith  "  works  by  love,  purifies  the  heart,  and 
overcomes  the  world" — thus  producing  spiritual  fi'uit  in 
the  soul,  viz.,  repentance,  hope,  purity,  &c.  But  in 
High  Church  doctrine,  faith  contains  within  itself  all 
other  graces,  and  this  justifies,  i.  e.,  sanctifies,  the  soul. 
Man  must  be  made  righteous,  and  then  accounted 
righteous." 

"  The  Scripture  uses  to  say,"  remarks  Hooker,  "  that, 
faith  without  works  doth  justify.*  It  is  a  childish  ob- 
jection, he  adds,"  *  *  *  « ^hat  we  thus  tread  aU 
Christian  virtues  under  our  feet  and  require  nothing 
but  faith  We  never  meant  to  exclude  either  hope  or 
'  charity  from  being  always  joined  as  inseparable  mates 
with  faith  in  the  justified  ;  nor  works  from  being  added 
as  necessary  duties,  &c.  Faith  is  the  only  hand  which 
putteth  on  Christ  for  justification,  and  Christ  the  only 
garment  which  covereth  the  shame  of  our  defiled  na- 
tures." But  in  the  High  Church  scheme  we  are  justified 
nit  only  by  faith,  but  in  a  measure  by  repentance,  hope, 
love,  and  the  other  graces  comprised  in  it.  As  to  the 
notion  that  the  true  believer  may  lose  his  justification 
every  day  or  every  hour,  and  have  it  renewed  again,  this 
was  not  the  doctrine  of  Bishop  Jewel,  of  the  days  of  the 
Reformation.  "God  hath  chosen  you  from  the  beginning. 
His  election  is  sure.  You  shall  not  fall  from  grace ; 
you  shall  not  perish."  *  *  *  *  "  But  how  may 
*  Homily  on  Salvation,  3d  part. 


PusEYiTE  Tendencies.  53 


we  know  that  God  hath  chosen  us?  *  *  *  The 
apostle  says,  "  Through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and 
belief  of  the  truth."  These  are  tokens  of  God's  elec- 
tion.* "This  Article"  (the  17th),  adds  Cranmer, 
*'  speaketh  only  of  the  elect,  in  whom  finally  no  fault 
shall  be,  but  they  shall  perpetually  continue  and  en- 
dure." t  The  Westminister  Assembly  did  not  more 
clearly  define  justification  in  the  Presbyterian  Shorter 
Catechism  than  these  early  framers  of  the  Articles  and 
fathers  of  the  Church  of  England  :  "  Justification  is 
an  act  of  God's  free  grace  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our 
sins  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight  only  for 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  and  received 
by  faith  alone." 

We  have  said  that  High  Church  Arminianism  has 
gone  to  seed  extensively  iu  Puseyism ;  and  in  no  partic- 
ular is  this  so  obviously  true  as  in  the  question  of  our 
justification  before  God.  Thus  says  Sumner,  Bishop  of 
Chester  :  "  The  tractarian  system  involves  the  Article 
of  our  justification  in  obscurity  ;  what  has  been  done  for 
tis  and  what  is  to  be  wrought  in  us  are  confounded  to- 
gether, and  practically  man  is  induced  to  look  to  himself 
and  not  to  his  Eedeemer  for  acceptance  with  God."  "  It 
threatens,"  he  adds,  "  the  revival  of  the  worst  evils  of 
the  Romish  superstition."  "  It  tends,"  say  others  of  the 
Episcopal  Bench,  "to  generate  an  inadequate,  super- 
ficial and  superstitious  religion  " — "  to  undermine  the 
whole  fabric  of  the  gospel " — "  to  produce  a  lowered 
tone  of  practical  religion,  a  revival  of  by-gone  follies, 
&c."J  Yet  this  system  of  bad  theology  and  loose  mor- 
als is  admitted  by  the  same  high  authorities  to  be  "no 
new  controversy  " — "  to  represent  a  contrast  of  opinions 
which  have  always  existed  in  the  Anglican  Church,"  &c. 
And  Thirlwall,  Bishop  of  St.  David,  says  of  this 
scheme :    "  After  the  closest  attention  I  could  give  to 

*  Jewel's  Exposition  of  Thessalonians,  pp.  143,  144. 

f  "  I  have  demonstrated,"  says  Dr.  Scott,  "  the  doctrines  com- 
monly called  Calvinistic  to  be  those  of  our  liturgy,  articles  and 
homilies,  and  of  those  reformers  both  before  and  after  Mary's 
reign,  who  compiled  them." — Remarks  on  Tomlin^s  Refutation. 

X  See  Bricknell's  Judgment  of  the  Bishops. 

6 


54  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


the  (tractarian)  dispute,  I  view  it  as  one  of  words,  in- 
volving no  real  difference  of  opinion,  and  consequently 
look  upon  both  parties  as,  in  this  respect,  equally  ortho- 
dox."* This  he  says  to  his  clergy  in  relation  to  "  the 
eleventh  Article  on  justification,"  which  he  admits  to  be 
"the  test  of  a  standing  or  falling  church."  Messrs. 
Newman  and  Pusey,  however,  are  not  so  blind  to  their 
own  distinctions,  affirming  that  "  men  are  accounted 
righteous  (justified)  inasmuch  as  they  have  been  made 
righteous  through  Christ's  righteousness  infused  into 
them ;"  and  the  opposite  sentiment  they  denounce  as 
"  the  soul-destroying  heresy  of  Luther  on  justification."  f 
This  is  only  High  Church  Armiuianism  run  mad — 
"  reasoning  correctly  to  legitimate  conclusions,  though 
from  false  premises."| 

From  the  facts  stated  and  the  extracts  now  given  it 
appears  most  undeniable  that  the  views  of  the  framers 
of  the  XXXIX  Articles  and  of  the  early  founders  of 
the  Established  Church  of  England,  were,  in  the  main, 
what  are  usually  called  Calvinistic.  No  Presbyterian 
desires  more  clear  and  explicit  statements,  especially  on 
the  subject  of  justification,  i.  e.,  the  great  question, 
"How  shall  man  be  just  with  God?"  Nor  is  it  less 
plain  that  from  the  days  of  Archbishop  Laud  (that 
"  man  of  littleness  and  unchristian  temper,  who  in  his 

*  See  his  Charge,  1842,  in  Bricknell. 

t  On  the  .same  topic  let  us  hear  the  "  Clergyman  Looking  for 
the  Church" — one  of  Mr.  Van  Deusen's  authorities:  "  My  own 
conviction,  after  long  and  painful  attention  to  the  subject,  is,  that 
the  manner  of  preaching  (among  Presbyterians  and  others)  the 
great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  *  *  *  *  \i  ik^ 
soul-destroying  lieresy  of  the  age."  "  We  express  our  firm  convic- 
tion once  more,  that  the  doctrine  of  jiistijication  by  faith  is  under- 
stood by  the  people  generally  to  mean  what  none  but  the  Antino- 
mians  would  desire  to  teach  ;  in  a  word,  that  as  it  is  too  often 
preached  especially  among  sectarians,  it  is  *  *  *  in  the 
popular  apprehension, /aZse."  "They  [i.  e.,  our  avarice,  worldli- 
nes.s,  broils,  vindictive  tempers,  &c,]  are  all  coined  by  the 
imputed,  but  not  corrected  by  the  indwelling  righteousness  of 
Christ;  s^noothed  over,"  &c.;  "justified  by  faith" — "a  dunghill 
wrapped  in  snow."  I  concede  to  this  writer  that  he  probably 
"  speaks  what  he  experienced,"  especially  while  looking  for  "  the 
church." 

t  See  notes  to  Bricknell,  for  the  foregoing  extract. 


PusEYiTE  Developments.  55 


diary  makes  constant  reference  to  dreams  and  other 
portents,  and  who,  in  many  instances,  it  is  impossible  to 
suppose  not  to  have  been  influenced  by  feelings  of  per- 
sonal revenge),"*  from  the  age  succeeding  that  of  the 
English  reformation  to  the  present  time,  there  has  been 
a  constant  struggle  between  the  High  Church  or  Armin- 
ian  party  and  the  evangelical  or  Calvinistic  part  of  the 
establishment.  Nor  need  I  say  that  the  lines  are  drawn 
with  equal  distiuctness  and  with  similar  results  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  this  countrj'. 

It  is  the  old  conflict  between  light  and  darkness. 
"  The  sagacity  of  Luther,"  says  Faber,  "  readily  per- 
ceived that  the  doctrine  of  justification  constitutes  the 
broad  boundary  between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the 
churches  of  the  Reformation.  The  doctrine  as  defined 
by  Trent,  is  the  ample  foundation  upon  which  all  her 
anti-scriptural  fopperies  and  anti-christian  impieties 
clearly  repose."t  "The  doctrine  of  the  early  Reform- 
ers, English  and  continental,"  he  continues,  "  makes 
Christ  alone  received  by  faith  in  full-orbed  glory  and 
undivided  righteousness  and  merit  the  Saviour  of  sinful 
man  ;  but  the  whole  drift  of  High  Church  Arminianism, 
especially  in  its  Puseyite  developments,  is  to  make 
church  and  priest,  and  sacraments  and  saints,  and  pil- 
grimage and  fasting,  and  penances  and  ordinances,  and 
innumerable  notions,  the  saviour  of  men."  And  these 
are  little  short  of  Popery. 

And  now,  without  extending  the  discussion,  to  which 
of  these  forms  of  doctrine  in  its  practical  working  can  be 
truly  ascribed  the  actual  and  most  efiectual  "  dissemi- 
nation of  morality  and  religion,"  wherever  the  two 
modes  of  teaching  have  had  equal  scope  ?  To  say  noth- 
ing of  the  great  "  mother  of  abominations,"  on  which 
side  in  this  conflict  have  ordinarily  been  found  the  profane 
and  profligate  monarch,  the  fox-hunting,  card-playing, 
theatre  and  ball-going  priest,  the  gay,  voluptuous,  giddy 
throng,  the  patrons  of  "  luxury  and  extravagance  in  the 
higher  walks  of  life,"  whose  lives  are  little  else  than  a 

*  This  is  Bishop  Short's  description  of  Laud — "the  martyred 
Laud  !  "    Short  is  a  staunch  Arminian. 
J  t  On  Justification,  the  work  of  an  Episcopal  clergyman. 


56  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


succession  of  "  amusements,"  entertainments,  pleasures 
and  personal  decorations,"*  and  oftentimes  scenes  of 
far  less  creditable  indulgence?  To  this  question  there  can 
be  but  one  answer.  But  this  may  be  thought  partial 
and  invidious.  Let  us  then  summon  an  unexceptionable 
witness  to  testify  in  relation  to  the  practical  influence  of 
the  two  schemes  of  justification.  Hear  Bishop  Mcll- 
vaine : 

"  Few  evidences  of  that  sad  decline  in  the  Church  of 
England  from  the  spirit  and  doctrine  of  her  martyred 
Reformers,  which  the  18th  and  the  latter  part  of  the  17th 
century  exhibited,  are  more  striking  than  *  *  *  * 
the  almost  entire  exclusion  from  the  controversies  with 
Rome,  of  the  doctrine  of  justification.  *  *  *  As 
we  approach  the  latter  period  of  that  (17th)  century, 
when  it  is  acknowledged  that  true  religion  was  greatly  on 
the  wane  in  that  church,  we  find  this  great  subject  more 
and  more  excluded  from  the  controversies  with  Rome,  as 
if  the  greater  number  of  Protestants  were  either  agreed 
with  her  doctrine,  or  considered  the  objections  of  Protest- 
ants of  uo  great  importance.  When,  however,  we  have 
reached  the  18th  century,  wherein  it  is  universally  con- 
ceded that  the  spiritual  character  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
was  at  its  lowest  depression,  we  take  leave  of  justification 
by  faith.  *  *  *  *  The  axe  is  laid  no  more  at'the 
root  of  the  tree.  The  great  effort  against  Popery  is  to 
trim  off"  its  branches."!  "  This  process  went  on"  adds 
Bishop  Mcllvaine,  "  debilitating,  and  exanimating  the 
religion  of  the  Anglican  Church,  till  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  last  century,  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
occurred  the  revival  of  true,  spiritual  piety,  and  the  return 
of  the  preaching  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers  as  to 
the  sinner's  justification  before  God."  So  true  is  it  in 
the  language  of  the  Pusejate  organ,  that  "  as  the  church 
threw  off  her  Calvinism,  she  also  began  to  incline  to  a 
union  with  Rome,  with  that  peculiar  system  of  morality 
and  religion,"!  which  mark  "the  mother  of  harlote 
and  abominations  of  the  earth."    Well  might  Bishop 

*  This  picture  is  from  Mr.  V.  D.,  p.  44. 
t  On  Oxford  Divinity,  p.  8. 
t  British  Critic,  Oct.  1842. 


Tendencies  towards  Popery,  57 


Bull  say  that  "  there  is  no  society  in  the  world,  where 
Antinomianisra  and  Libertinism  more  reign  than  among 
the  Papists."*  We  know  High  Church  Armiuiauisra 
hj  her  proclivities  and  advances  towards  such  associa- 
tions !  No  wonder  that  the  "  clergyman  looking  for  the 
church"  can  bring  himself  to  say  "  the  right  of  private 
judgment  is  the  (Calvinistic)  cup  of  sorceries."  "  There 
is  certainly,"  he  adds,  "  a  chain  of  hands  from  Calvinism 
down  to  atheism."!  Yet  the  fathers  of  the  Church  of 
England  were  Calvinists ;  and  in  several  essential  par- 
ticulars, as  will  be  shown  hereafter,  they  were  Calvinistic 
Presbyterians!  It  follows,  from  this  induction  of 
particulars,  that  Messrs.  Van  Deusen,  Mines,  and  their 
fellows,  charge  the  early  reformers  and  fathers  of  their 
own  church  with  "  horrid  and  blasphemous  opinions," 
&c.,  &c. 

Among  the  recent  developments  towards  Popery 
among  High  Churchmen,  are  found  the  following  : 
Somebody  writes  to  the  Church  Journal  to  say  that 
'•  wafers,"  instead  of  bread,  have  been  introduced  in  the 
administration  of  the  Lord's  supper  in  the  Episcopal 
diocese  of  Tennessee,  and  asks  if  there  is  any  law 
against  it.  The  Journal  says  no.  Last  year  only  eight 
Episcopal  churches  in  London  used  incense.  Now  it  is 
used  in  fourteen.  Altar  lights  are  used  in  thirty-six 
churches.  The  practice  of  confession  is  increasing. 
*  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  p.  12.  f  Pages  169,  170. 


58  Hjgh  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  IXTH  AND  XTH  ARTICLES  OF  THE  PRAYER  BOOK 
— THEIR  ADMIRABLE  CALVINISM. 

The  articles  on  Original  Sin  and  Free  Will  are  fully 
up  to  the  Presbyterian  doctrinal  standards,  and  greatly 
add  to  the  difficulties  and  embarrassments  of  an  Armi- 
nian  clergy.  By  what  process  of  evasion  or  spiritual 
legerdemain  they  are  subscribed  by  the  High  Church 
anti-Calvinists,  who  solemnly  promise  to  teach  them,  is 
a  profound  mystery  which  Ave  will  not  attempt  to  solve. 
The  Xth  reads  as  follows.    It  is  on  Free  Will : 

"  The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam  is  such, 
that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by  his  own 
natural  strength  and  good  works,  to  faith,  and  calling 
upon  God.  Wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good 
works  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace 
of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a 
good  will,  and  working  with  us,  when  we  have  that  good 
will." 

Taken  in  connection  with  Art.  IX,  and  as  interpreted 
by  it,  we  learn  that  by  reason  of  original  or  birth  sin, 
man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  is 
of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  so  that  the  flesh 
ALWAYS  lusteth  contrary  to  the  Spirit ;  and,  therefore, 
in  every  person  born  into  this  world,  it  ("  birth  sin")  de- 
serveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation."  This  is  certainly 
explicit  enough,  and  seems  to  teach  with  great  clearness 
that  man  is  "  shapen  in  iniquity  and  in  sin  his  mother 
conceives  him  that  he  is  by  nature  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins,"  and  "  his  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things 
and  desperately  wicked" — which  is  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine of  original  sin. 

But  now  look  at  an  Arminian  or  High  Church  com- 


Some  Spaek  op  Goodness. 


59 


mentary  on  these  Articles:  "We  have  our  Saviour's 
authority  for  saying  that  there  is  some  goodness  of  heart 
in  the  human  race ;  different  men  possess  these  various 
qmlities  in  different  degrees."  "We  can  by  no  means 
allow  the  inference  attempted  to  be  drawn  from  the 
words  of  the  Articles,  that  we  are  without  any  spark  of 
goodness  (or  holiness)  in  us."  "This  is  such  a  degra- 
dation of  human  nature."  "  God  gives  to  every  man 
*  *  *  a  power,  the  efficacy  of  which  depends  upon 
the  exertion  of  the  human  will."  "God  gives  the  strength 
of  the  human  body,  but  the  exertion  of  that  strength  is 
left  to  the  will  of  man  ;  in  like  manner,  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit,  &c."*  But  if  this  last  statement  be  the  true  sense 
in  which  "  faith  is  the  gift  of  God,"  then  unbelief  is  his 
gift  in  the  same  sense,  viz.,  God  bestows  the  faculties  of 
mind  by  which  the  soul  freely  disbelieves,  as  much  as 
those  by  which  it  believes !  This  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
Paul.  "It  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  both  to  will 
AND  TO  DO  of  his  own  good  pleasure."  If  "  man  is  of  his 
oum  nature  inclined  to  evil,"  and  "the  flesh  alwayslusteth 
to  evil,"  and  he  is  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  how 
can  he  possess  "  any  spark  of  goodness  ?"  Yet  this  same 
author  says:  "  It  is  acknowledged  that  he  has  not  the 
disposition,  and  consequently  not  the  ability,  to  do  what 
in  the  sight  of  God  is  good,  till  he  is  influenced  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  f  But  if  man  possess  neither  "  the  dispo- 
sition" nor  "  the  ability"  to  do  good,  how  can  he  possess 
"  virtuous  qualities,"  or  "  a  spark  of  goodness  ?" 

So,  when  that  High  Church  Arminian  Whitby  at- 
tempts to  prove  "  that  there  is  no  need  of  any  operation 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  change  and  determine  the  will  of 
man  to  good,  except  a  moral  influence,  suggesting  ideas 
to  his  understanding,"!  he  seems  to  have  forgotten 
the  prayer  of  David :  "  Oreate  in  me  a  clean  heart." 
Creation  is  something  different  from  "suggesting  ideas." 
"  If  any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature."  "  We 
are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto 
good  works."    Besides,  these  "suggested  ideas,"  to  have 

*  Tomline,  Eefiitation  of  Calvinism,  pp.  14,  55, 
t  Ibid.,  p.  61. 

i  Disc,  on  the  Five  Points,  pp.  211-213. 


60 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


any  good  influence  over  the  soul,  must  present  control- 
ling motives  of  action,  and  thus  superinduce  a  bias  or 
strong  bent  in  one  direction.  But  this  is  to  destroy 
Arminian  liberty,  which  consists  in  indifference,  or  a 
freedom  of  the  mind  from  actual  pre-possession  and  pre- 
inclination  one  way  or  the  other. 

Again :  If  "  man  is  of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil, 
and  the  flesh  (the  natural  man)  always  lusteth  against 
the  Spirit,"  as  the  Articles  affirm — then  here  is  an  ante- 
cedent bias  which  totally  obliterates  Arminian  indiffer- 
ence, and  destroys  the  liberty  of  the  will !  If  the  will 
must  be  possessed  of  such  an  indifference  as  leaves  it  free 
from  actual  inclination  one  way  or  other,  as  Whitby  and 
other  Arminians  affirm,  then,  by  the  very  terms  of  the 
Articles,  man  by  nature  possesses  no  "  freedom  of  will !' 
Of  course,  if  left  in  that  state,  he  could  not  commit  the 
least  sin.  Hence  it  follows  that  all  the  sins  of  mankind 
since  the  fall,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  free  grace,  which, 
Arminians  say,  restored  free  will.  They  assure  us  that, 
by  reason  of  "  original  sin,"  "  we  are  utterly  disabled  for 
the  performance  of  true  obedience  without  new  grace 
from  God,  which  he  mercifully  gives  to  all."  Yet,  they 
also  affirm  that  to  leave  man  in  his  ruined  and  helpless 
state  produced  by  the  Fall,  would  be  extremely  cruel 
and  unjust.  In  other  words,  to  leave  man  in  a  perfectly 
sinless  state,  would  be  tyranny,  cruelty  and  injustice! 
And  to  enable  him  to  escape  from  such  cruelty  and  in- 
justice, is  the  peculiar  office  of  Arminian  grace!  But  if 
this  be  true,  "  grace  is  no  more  grace."  It  is  scarcely 
the  full  payment  of  a  just  debt !  For  surely  it  is  no 
grace  in  God  to  avoid  acts  of  cruelty  and  injustice !  He 
owes  it  to  himself  to  do  right. 

High  Church  Arminians  profess  to  be  very  zealous 
for  the  doctrine  that  "  faith  and  obedience  are  in  some 
degree  in  our  own  power."*  And  it  is  even  maintained 
that  "  the  power  which  God  gives  to  every  man,  through 
the  means  of  his  grace,  to  perform  the  conditions  of  the 
gospel,  is  a  power  which  depends  for  its  efficacy  upon  the 
exertion  of  the  human  will."t    In  other  words,  grace 

*  Tomline's  Eefutation,  p.  66. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  64. 


.Strange  Notions  of  Free  Will. 


61 


gives  "  a  power  of  exertion  to  the  will,"  without  which 
it  would  not  be  free,  man  would  be  a  mere  machine, 
and  sin  would  be  impossible !  And  to  leave  him  in  this 
sinless  condition  would  be  great  "  cruelty  and  injustice," 
which  require  infinite  grace  and  mercy  to  shield  his  inno- 
cent head !  The  truth  is,  that  the  "Articles,"  when  in- 
terpreted on  Arminian  and  High  Church  principles,  are 
a  mass  of  contradictions  and-  incoherencies.  Man  is  of 
his  ovm  nature  "  inclined  to  evil,"  always  inclined  to  it. 
Hence,  of  coui-se,  moral  evil  or  sin  is  an  impossibility. 
This  inclination  or  habit  of  sin,  destroys  the  power  to 
sin !  So  that  Whitby  affirms  that  even  "  the  saints  in 
heaven  and  the  damned  in  hell,"  in  consecjuence  of  pre- 
viously formed  habits  of  good  and  evil,  "  are  not  reward- 
able  or  punishable."*  These  are  parts  of  the  system 
which  the  Rector  at  Pittsburgh  thinks  best  adapted  to 
"disseminate  morality  and  religion  throughout  the 
world."  We  fear  the  High  Church  millennium  is  still 
far  distant.  For,  as  Edwards  has  well  said  :  "  If  men 
must  be  possessed  of  a  po'wer  of  self-determination  con- 
sisting in  absolute  indifference,  without  being  swayed  by 

Erevious  inclination  or  motive — if  this  is  essential  to  the 
•eedom  of  the  will,  then  it  follows  that  the  stronger  a 
man's  inclinations  and  evil  disposition  to  do  wickedly, 
the  less  culpable  ;'and  the  stronger  his  dispositions  or  in- 
clinations to  virtuous  actions,  the  less  praiseworthy.""!; 
Hence  it  follows  that  as  heaven  is  the  place  where  the 
strongest  dispositions  to  holiness,  love  to  God  and  to  his 
service  exist,  that  is  the  least  holy  place  in  the  universe : 
and  changing  the  terms,  hell  must  be  the  least  wicked  of 
all  parts  of  the  universe !  "  Who  shall  blame  me,"  says 
a  rabid  High  Churchman,  "  for  renouncing  a  religion 
(the  Presbyterian)  which  taught  me  that  for  Adam's  sin 
alone,  his  whole  posterity  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath, 
bond  slaves  of  Satan,  justly  liable  to  all  punishments 
in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come."  The  refer- 
ence is  to  Ques.  29  (it  ought  to  be  27)  of  the  Larger  Cat- 
echism. It  speaks  of  "  the  misery  the  fall  of  Adam 
brought  upon  mankind."  Of  course  he  shudders  at 
such  horrible  doctrine ! 

*  Disc,  on  the  Five  Points,  p.  269. 
tOn  the  AVill,  p.  296. 


62  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Now  we  suspect  this  person  had  never  read  the  ninth 
Article  of  his  own  church  :  "  Original  sin  *  *  is  the  fault 
and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man  that  natu- 
rally is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam  ;  whereby 
man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and 
of  his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil — so  that  the  flesh  lust- 
eth  always  against  the  spirit :  and  therefore,  in  eveiy 
person  born  into  the  world,  rr  deserveth  God's  wrath 
AND  DAMNATION."  What  a  horrible  religion,  to  require 
people  to  believe  this  monstrous  Article!  "In  every 
person  "  (even  infants)  "  born  into  this  world,  it  (original 
sin)  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation  !"  Because  it 
is  "  the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man 
who  is  naturally  engendered  of  the  ofispring  of  Adam, 
&c."  It  must  be  obvious  to  every  person  of  commou 
sense,  that  if  "  original  or  birth  sin  deserveth  God's 
wrath  or  damnation,"  it  of  course  deserves  all  the  pun- 
ishments which  befall  any  of  our  race,  even  infants,  in 
this  world.  Of  course  the  greater  includes  the  less.  And 
would  a  just  God  inflict  such  punishments,  if  not  de- 
served ?  Yet  this  man  has  the  eflft-ontery  to  publish,  as 
a  reason  for  "renouncing  the  Presbyterian  Church," 
that  she  teaches  this  identical  doctrine  of  "the  Fall," 
and  "  original  or  birth  sin,"  as  stated  in  Article  IX  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  to  which  he  says  he  fled  from 
such  awful  heresy !    What  a  marvellous  escape  !* 

To  render  the  perfect  absurdity  of  such  conduct  still 
more  obvious  (if  possible),  let  it  be  observed  that  if  even 
infants  dying  in  infancy  do  not  deserve  the  punishment 
stated  in  Article  IX,  of  course  they  need  no  Saviour — 
for  why  should  Christ  die  to  save  them  from  a  penalty 
which  they  do  not  deserve?  Of  course  the  baptism  of 
infants  is  an  unmeaning  rite — for  why  use  the  sign  of 
cleansing  where  there  is  nothing  to  be  cleansed  ?  It  fol- 
lows, too,  that  in  regard  to  that  large  proportion  of  the 
human  family  (infants  who  die)  grace  is  a  word  without 
meaning.  Wonderful  "  grace  "  indeed,  that  the  Son  of 
God  should  die  to  save  those  who  could  not  be  justly 
punished,  and  so  had  no  need  of  salvation !  Hence  it 
follows,  that  Christ  did  not  make  "  a  perfect  satisfaction 
for  the  whole  world,"  contrary  to  Article  XXXI. 
*  Clergym.in  Looking,  &c.,  p.  552. 


Dying  Infants  are  Saved. 


63 


Presbyterians  joyfully  receive  the  pleasing  assurance 
that  all  who  die  before  coming  to  the  years  of  responsi- 
bility are  "elect  infants,"  i  e.,  elect  from  the  mass  of 
mankind,  redeemed  from  the  curse  and  saved — but  this 
supposes  them  to  have  needed  the  remedy  provided  in 
the  gospel,  and  to  be  saved  only  by  its  infinite  virtue. 
The  absurdity  of  High  Churchism  lies  in  teaching 
"  salvation,  for  those  who  need  no  salvation  !" 


64  High  Church  EprscoPACY. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

DOCTRINAL  DIFFICULTIES — THE  POPISH  DOCTRINE  OF 
BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION — THE  LITURGY  AGAINST 
THE   XXXIX  ARTICLES. 

In  investigating  the  Arminian  and  Romish  character- 
istics of  High  Church  Episcopacy,  we  are  now  prepared 
to  examine  the  subject  of  Baptism,  particularly  in  its  rela- 
tions tviih  regeneration. 

The  27th  Article  of  the  Prayer  Book  is  as  follows  : 

"  Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark 
of  difference,  whereby  Christian  men  are  discerned  from 
others  that  be  not  christened,  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  re- 
generation or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument, 
they  that  receive  baptism  rightly,  are  grafted  into  the 
church  ;  the  promises  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  of 
our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
are  visibly  signed  and  sealed  ;  faith  is  confirmed,  and 
grace  increased  by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God. 

The  baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be 
retained  in  the  church,  as  most  agreeable  with  the  institu- 
tion of  Christ." 

Scarcely  a  word  in  this  Article  can  give  oflfence*to  a 
Calvinist.  In  every  important  particular,  it  is  almost 
verbally  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession. 
And  in  Article  25,  "  On  the  Sacraments,"  the  mean- 
ing is  more  fully  brought  out.  "  In  such  only  as 
worthily  receive  the  same  (the  sacraments)  they  have  a 
wholesome  effect  or  operation;  but  they  that  receive  them 
unworthily,  purchase  to  themselves  damnation,  as  St. 
Paul  saith."  And  in  Article  26,  "  Neither  is  the  effect 
of  Christ's  ordinance  taken  away  by  their  wickedness 
(viz.,  of  the  persons  administering  them),  nor  the  grace  of 
God's  gifts  diminished  from  such  as  by  faith  and  rightly, 


BaPTI.sMAI.  liEGENKUATlOX.  (5-5 

do  receive  the  sacraments,  *  *  *  *  which  be  etfectiial 
because  of  Christ's  institution  and  promise." 

Now  would  it  ever  enter  the  mind  of  an  honest  interpre- 
ter, that  these  Articles  teach  the  doctrine  of  "baptismal 
Regeneration" — i.  e.,  not  that  this  great  change  produced 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  operatingupou  the  soul,  may  be  effected 
at  the  moment  of  baptism,  which  Presbyterians  most 
firmly  believe  to  be  often  the  case — but  that  they  are  so 
inseparably  connected,  that  in  no  instance  is  baptism  ad- 
ministered without  "  the si^/i"  being  attended  with  "the 
thing  signified ;"  the  washing  with  water,  attended  by 
"  the  washing  of  spiritual  regeneration  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Yet  this  is  the  interpretation,  rather 
the  perversion,  put  upon  these  Articles  by  High  Church- 
men ! 

Take  one  or  two  examples :  "  Tiiose  who  are  baptized 
ari'  immriJiatehi  translated  from  the  curse  of  Adam  to  the 
ijritcr  of  Christ,  *  *  *  they  become  reconciled  to 
God,  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  heirs  of  eternal 
happiness.  *  *  *  *  This  great  and  wonderful 
change  is  as  it  were  a  new  nature — an  act  essential  to  the 
cliaracter  of  a  Christian."  "  There  cannot  be  a  second 
baptism  or  a  second  regeneration  ;"  "  the  Holy  Ghost,  in 
and  by  the  use  of  water,  causes  the  new  birth  ;"  "  an 
inward  effect  produced  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the 
means  of  baptism."  "  Regeneration  is  in  Scripture  solely 
and  exclusively  applied  to  tlie  one  immediate  effect  of 
baptism  once  administered,  *  ''^  *  never  to  express 
any  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  mind  subse- 
quent to  baptism."* 

Again:  "Our  church,"  another  bishop  tells  us,  "considers 
the  being  baptized  as  the  same  as  being  regenerated,  and 
uses  the  veiy  terms  as  convertible."  "  Whether  where 
baptism  cannot  be  had,  God  is  ever  pleased  to  give  re- 
;^eneration,  as  Scripture  is  silent,  so  likewise  is  the 
church."  "  She  tells  us,  too,  that  every  baptized  infant  is 
regenerated  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church, 
*  *  and  received  for  God's  own  child  by  adoption."t 
But  perhaps  it  may  be  suggested  that  these  are  the 

*  Tomline's  Refutation  of  Calvinism,  chap.  2 
t  rharge  of  thp  BiMiop  of  Kx-^ter,  1842. 


66 


High  Cjivkch  EriscoPAcy. 


extreme  dogmas  of  the  M'ell-fed  dignitaries  of  the  mother 
church,  but  not  at  all  the  views  of  American  Episcopacy. 
Listen :  "  They  (Presbyterians)  have  no  baptifm.  The 
sprinkling  of  water  among  them  is  without  the  Spirit." 
"  The  Baptists  see  distinctly  that  infant  baptism  *  *  * 
is  not  worth  maintaining  on  the  popular  grounds  ad- 
duced by  Presbyterians  in  its  defence.  In  fact  they  see 
that  separated  from  regeneration,  it  ceases  to  he  a  saeror 
vient."  "  Baptism  without  regeneration  is  not  a  sacrament, 
and  notworth  retaining."*  These  sentiments  are  published 
under  "copy  right,"  by  "  the  General  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Sunday  School  Union,"  New  York  !  They  are  the 
^cripturil  "milk"  which  High  Church  furnishes  for 
her  babes  !  "  Presbyterians  have  no  baptism" — yet  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter  says  cxprcs.'^ly,  "  The  effect  of  baptism 
*  *■  *  administered  by  heretics  and  schismatics,  is 
snfficient  to  render  re-baptization  unlawful."  It  is 
added,  "  Thu  incomparably  learned  Bingham  *  *  * 
maintained  that  schismatical  baptism  *  *  *  is  valid 
so  as  to  I  'recludc  re-baptization."t  Bishop  Hooker  says 
the  same  thing.  "  The  Court  of  Arches"  also  expressly 
decides,  "Nothing  can  be  more  dear  than  that  from 
Augustine  in  the  4th  century  down  to  1712,  *  *  * 
the  bajitisni  of  persons  by  any  one  other  than  a  lawful 
minister,  was  considered  to  be  valid  and  sufficient. "X  And 
the  Bishop  of  Exeter  adds,  "Infants,  baptized  by  per- 
sons heretical  in  tlie  fundamental  Article  of  the  Trinity," 
are  to  be  regarded  as  having  received  "  baptism  in  that 
holi/  name  I''  Yet  "  Presbyterians,"  worse  than  laymen, 
and  heretics,  "  have  no  baptism  !" 

The  doctrine  of  High  Churchmen  is  thus  demonstrated 
to  be  this,  "  that  regeneration  is  the  immediate,  invaria- 
ble effect  of  lawful"  baptism,  and  Sabbath  schools  are 
to  be  taught  that  without  this  "  effect"  of  baptism,  "  it 
ceases  to  be  a  sacrament."  But  is  this  the  teaching  of 
the  XXXIX  Articles  ? 

The  early  Refoimers  and  framers  of  the  Articles  were 
Calvinists,  as  we  have  already  shown ;  and  the  sense  which 

*  "  Clergvnian  Looking  for  tlie  Gunx-li,"'  ji.  557,  Go,  4,  &c. . 
t  Charge,  lRt-2. 
t  Ibkl/ 


Views  of  Chan>ikr  amj  oTtiEUs. 


67 


they  intended  should  be  put  on  those  Articles,  is  the 
sense  now  universally  givenbyCalviuistie  Presbyterians. 
Those  noble  men  oi'  I  he  IGtli  century  never  conceived 
of  "  baptismal  regeneration"  as  taught  therein.  Thus 
Cranraer:  "  Those  that  come  feign edly  and  those  that 
come  unfeignedly  ('  rightly') — both  be  washed  with  the 
sacramental  water,  but  both  be  not  luashed  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  clothed  with  Christ."'*  "  All  that  be 
washed  in  the  water  be  not  washed  with  the  Holy  Ghost."t 
So  Latimer  :  "  What  is  this  regeneration  '/  It  is  not, 
'  to  be  christened  with  water.'".];  Hooper  says  :  "Bap- 
tism is  but  the  confirmation  of  Christ's  promises  which  be 
in  the  person  that  receiveth  the  sacrament  before,  or  else 
these  e.vtenwi  n/V/zi.?  aiuii/  liolJihu/."  "  They  (tlie  sacra- 
ments') show  that  we  be  fegeuirtifed,  ami  not  be  regene- 
rated l)y  then)."  Coverdale  afhrms:  "To  use  the 
sacraments  witliout  faith  profitetli  not,  but  rather  liurt- 
eth."  Jewel  adds:  "It  is  neither  the  work  (jf  the 
priest,  nor  the  nature  of  the  sacrament  a>t  of  iUdf,  that 
maketh  us  partakers  of  Christ's  death,  liut  only  the  ftitli 
of  the  receiver."  "  Whosoever  is  not  joined  to  God  before 
lie  receiveth  the  sacraments,  he  eateth  and  drinketh  his 
own  judgment.  The  sacraments  be  seeds  and  witnesses, 
■And  not  properly  the  causes  of  this  conjunction."  "The 
sacraments,  unto  the  godly  are  the  instruments  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ;  and  unto  tlie  wicked  are  increase  of  further 
judgment."  "  lu  baptism  thei-e  are  two  parts  or  mys- 
teries, Clirist's  blood  and  material  water,  *  *  which 
l.)e  oftentimes  severed,  and  the  one  is  received  ivithout  the 
o'/(tT."§  One  other  testimony.  Kogers  (1586)  chaplain  to 
Archbishop  Bancroft,  in  his  Exposition  of  the  XXXIX 
Articles,  dedicated  to  him,  says  :  "  Baptism  is  called  the 
washing  of  the  new  birth,  *  *  to  signify  how  they 
which  rightly  receive  the  same  (as  all  do  not),  are  in- 
grafted into  the  body  of  Christ."    "We  condemn  the 

*  Answer  to  Gardiner,  Wks.,  vol.  1,  p.  47. 
t  Answer  to  Smith,  vol.  1,  p.  206. 
j  Sermons,  vol.  1,  p.  202. 

'  S  i;ne  rrcoire  tlie  sacraiiienis,  bill  nut  the  thni<i,H  signllied. 
--i,:ih  i,.,-ivc  »..'  til  '  s!irr:nn.-iils  at  all.  vet  jinrlakc  of  tlie  things 


08 


High  Church  Episcopao'. 


opinion  that  there  is  such  necessity  of  baptism  as  that 
all  that  die  without  the  same  are  damned" — also,  "  that 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  is  cause  of  the  salvation  of 
infants" — and  "  that  the  sacraments  give  grace  ex  opere 
operato  and  bring  faith  ex  opere  operufo,"  i.  e.,  from  the 
mere  act  of  administration — which  is  the  Papist  doc- 
trine, or  that  'the  sign'  is  invariably  accompanied  with 
'the  thing  signified.'"  "I  have  shown,"  remarks  the 
Episcopal  Mr.  Goode,  a  London  clergyman,  "that  the 
testimony  of  our  archbishops,  bishops  and  the  divinity 
professors  of  our  universities,  at  and  for  a  long  period 
after  the  Reformation,  ls  wholly  opposed  to  the  notion 
of  spiritual  regeneration  being  always  conferred  upon 
infants  (and  adults  too)  in  their  baptism."* 

But  if  the  teaching  of  the  XXXIX  Articles  be  so 
plain  and  obvious,  how  does  High  Churchism  manage 
to  prop  up  her  cause  ?  We  have  already  intimated  that 
the  liturgy  still  contains  the  savor  of  its  Popish  origin  ; 
and  here  the  High  Church  take  refuge  as  in  their 
stronghold.  Nor  can  it  be  questioned  that  the  forms  of 
baptism  in  the  Prayer  Book  give  only  to  >  plausible 
ground  for  their  doctrine.  It  is  indeed  a  disputed  point 
in  the  Anglican  Church  whether  "  the  liturgy  is  the  ex- 
ponent of  the  Articles  or  the  Articles  of  the  liturgy." 
The  Bishop  of  London,  in  his  charge,  1842,  mentions 
"  an  instance  in  which  the  liturg  r  not  only  explains,  but 
in  some  sense  corrects  the  language  of  an  Article."  Again, 
"  where  the  meaning  of  an  article  may  appear  to  be  un- 
certain, we  have  the  church  for  her  own  interpreter  in 
her  liturgy  and  homilies,  especially  the  former."  But 
this  view  has  been  vehemently  opposed.  "  The  Articles," 
it  is  said,  "  are  the  sheet-anchor  of  our  churchraauship." 

*  Those  who  wish  to  see  this  subject  fully  discussed,  are  referred 
to  "Goode  on  Baptism"— an  elaborate  work  of  500 pages  octavo, 
a  London  book,  reprinted  in  this  country.  His  7th  chapter  treats 
of  "  the  doctrine  of  our  leadins;  Reformers  and  divines  during  the 
reigns  of  Edward  VI  and  Elizabeth  and  the  earlier  part  of  that 
of  James  I."  From  such  a  source,  sustained  as  he  is  by  a  vast 
cloud  of  witnesses,  his  work  approaches  near  to  an  absolute  de- 
monstration; that  "baptismal  regeneration"  is  not  taught  in  the 
XXXIX  Articles,  but  is  a  romparntive  noveltv  of  (lie  days  of 
Laud, 


Regenek.vtiox  only  IX  Baitis-M.  (j9 


"  Of  what  use  were  the  Articles  meant  to  be  if  not  to 
act  as  the  final  summary  of  the  theology  of  the  Church 
of  England  ?  "  "  This  is  their  peculiar  property  and  ot- 
fice" — "  to  give  a  general  exponential  face  to  her  entire 
theology."  "  We  heartily  give  in  our  allegiace  to  the 
church  as  understanding  the  liturgy  *  *  *  fjic 
sense  of  the  Articles."  "  But,"  replies  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don, "  our  Jirst  guide  is  the  liturgy."  The  opinion  which 
denies  baptismal  regeneration,  might,  possibly,  though  not 
withuiit  great  difficulty,  be  reconciled  with  the  language 
of  the  twenty-seventh  Article,  but  by  no  stretch  of  inge- 
nuity be  brouglitto  agrt-o  witli  {hv  jtlniii,  unqna/i/iedlan- 
guage  of  the  offices  for  b:i|)tisni  and  confirmation."*  So 
the  Bishop  of  Exeter  quoting  the  liturgy,  in- 

structs his  clergy:  "Tlu'  ehui-'-h  tells  lis  that  every 
baptized  infant  is  icgriiciatf  and  grafted  ii:to  the  body 
of  Christ's  church,"  and  eouinuinds  us  "to  yield  hearty 
thanks  to  Almighty  God  for  having  been  pleased  thus  to 
regenerate  him  with  his  Holy  Sjjirit,"  and  for  "  having 
received  him  for  his  own  child  by  adoption,"  and  "  for 
having  incorporated  him  (the  infant)  into  his  holy 
church."  And  to  "  teach  any  other  doctrine  than  this," 
the  bishop  pronounces  "disingenuous"  on  the  part  of 
his  clergy!  Nay,  he  adds,  "  our  church  maintains  * 
*  *  that  to  infants  always,  and  to  adults  rightly  re- 
ceiving, regeneration  is  given  in  baptism,  and  in  bap- 
tism only!  "  "We  may  say  in  faith,"  adds  the  Bishop 
of  Down  and  Connor,  "of  every  child  that  is  bajjtized, 
that  it  is  regenerated  by  God's  Idoly  Spirit."  This  is 
genuine  High  Churchism !  It  does  not  say  mucli  for  the 
boasted  unity  of  the  Auglican  Churcii  that  others  of  her 
chief  dignitaries.  Low  Churchmen,  maintain  with  equal 
zeal,  that  "  regeneration  is  to  be  distinguished  from  re- 
novation"— "  that  the-  Episcopal  Church  does  )io<  assert 
that  every  baptized  infant  is  regenerate  in  the  spiritual 
sense  of  the  word."  f  With  these  opposing  views  we  are 
not  at  present  concerned.  Our  argument  is  with  the 
High  Church.  If  any  one  should  imagine  that  the 
American  braneii  of  the  Episcopal  body  is  either  more 

Chi.r-c,  1S4-'. 
t  ItricUi.cU's  Ch:,r<iO<  <if  lli-  I!i-li(ii>^. 


70 


IlKiH  Chi  rch  Episcopacy. 


sound  or  more  harmonious  on  these  topics,  he  will  obtain 
small  credit  for  accurate  obser\'atiou. 

Amid  this  conflict  of  opinion,  the  discord  of  a  "family 
divided  against  itself,"  we  go  to  the  liturgy  to  examine 
for  ourselves : 

1.  How  does  the  liturgy  describe  the  moral  disease 
which  is  to  be  healed?  "All  men  are  conceived  and 
born  in  sin  " — need  to  be  "  delivered  from  God's  wrath," 
and  to  be  "  baptized  with  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whicli  &)/  ?i((^r;v  tb(  y  cannot  have" — need  "  to  be  made 
living  inembcrs  oi'  ( "liristV  holy  church;"  and,  accord- 
ingly, the  chnicli  is  r(  (|iiiiv(l  to  pray  for  ilte  injant  about 
to  be  baptized,  that  "  lie  may  receive  remission  of  sins  by 
spiritual  regeneration.  "  Such  is  the  spiritual  malady. 

2.  The  remeiJj/.  The  prayer  before  baptism  is,  "  Givt 
thy  Holy  Spirit  to  this  infant,  that  he  may  be  bori 
again,  and  be  made  an  heir  of  everlasting  salvation,' 
and  that  "  Christ  would  embrace  this  present  infant  in 
the  arms  of  his  mercy,"  "  release  him  from  sin,  sanctify 
him  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  give  him  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  and  everlasting  life,"  that  "  he  may  receive  the 
fullness  of  thij  grace  and  ever  EEJLiiN  in  the  number  of 
thy  faithful  children."  These  various  phrases  explain 
what  is  meant  by  "spiritual  regeneration."  Certainly 
not  a  mere  change  of  external  relation  in  regard  to 
nominal  membership  in  the  church. 

3.  Such  are  the  disease  and  the  remedy.  Now,  after 
baptism  has  been  performed,  how  do  matters  stand  ? 
Alter  "  the  sign  of  the  cross  "  upon  the  child,  the  min- 
ister says,  "  Seeing  now  that  this  child  is  regenerate  and 
grafted  into  the  liody  of  Christ's  church,  let  us  give 
thanks,"  and  then  he  prays  that "  this  child  may  lead  the 
rest  of  his  life  according  to  this  beginning." 

Again  :  "  We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful 
Father,  that  it  hath  I'LEASED  thee  to  regenerate  this 
infant  with  tliij  Hohj  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own 
child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy  holy 
church  ;  ''''  *  and  we  beseech  thee  that  as  he  is 
made  partaker  of  the  death  of  thy  Son,  he  may  also  be 
a  partaker  of  his  resurrection,    *    *    *    an  inheritor 


Sxri-KXDOCs    CHANtiE    I.N    J iAl'i' l.'-M .  I  I 

oi  thy  everlasting  kingdom."  Will  any  person  of  good 
-i  iise  venture  to  affirm  that  all  this  means  no  more  thnu 
a  change  of  outward  relation  ?  Does  it  require  "  Al- 
mighty God"  to  "regenerate  with  his  Holy  f?()irit"  be- 
fore a  child  can  possess  this  external  relation  V  In  like 
manner,  in  private  baptism,  the  minister,  after  the  rite 
i-  performed,  exhorts  "  Doubt  ye  not,  but  earnestly 
believe  that  he  (Christ)  hath /aivjmi///  received  this  pres- 
ent infant,  hath  embraced  him  in  the  anus  of  his  mercy, 
and  will  give  unto  him  the  blessing  of  eternal  life."  Then 
the  minister  says,  S.H-inu-  ti  at  this  (-WM  is  reijenerate 
and  grafted  iutn  the  body  of  Cliii-t's  rhiin-h,  lrt"u>  uive 
thanks:"  "  We  yield  lli'ee  heartv  thank,-,  most  merciful 
Father,  that  it  li'ath  pbii<,:d  iher  to  mjenerolr  this  iutlint 
with  thy  Holy  Spirit,"  i^t,,  ■'  uuule  [hiui]  i.a:takcr  of 
the  death  of  thy  Son,"  ■■  su  may  he  be  jiartaker  of  his 
resurrection,"  "  an  inheritor  of  thy  eviTlasting  king- 
dom." It  is  doubtful  whether  any  lauguage  could  be 
employed  to  teach  more  distinctly  than  these  forms  do 
that  all  infants  who  aro  baptized  are  spiritually  regene- 
rate, made  "  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus"  by  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  soul. 

That  this  is  the  interpretation  that  High  Churchmen 
put  upon  these  expre^^si(l^s  is  further  proved  by  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  from  the  sermon  preached  at  the  recent 
dedication  of  Trinity  Cluireh,  Pittsburgh.  Tlie  iireacli- 
er,  Kev.  Dr.  C.  E.  Swope,  one  of  the  ministers  of  Trinity 
Church,  New  York,  described  a  certain  "  stupendous 
change  "  in  baptism,  and  which  ho  said  was  produced  in 
mode  and  manner  as  follows  : 

"  A  child  of  Adam  and  of  wrath  is  brought  to  the 
regenerating  font  for  the  remis-i'in  nf  <ins  and  for  the 
adoption  of  grace,  and  Cod  hinisi'li'  ir-  th  rr  to  take  it  to 
himself  and  to  enter  into  enmiiact  to  bi-.-iow  the  riches 
of  his  love;  and  this  stui)i'ndou>  iIkiuu''  is  wrdiight  un- 
der the  veil  of  a  few  uttered  words,  aud  the  sprinkling 
of  a  little  water  in  the  Triune  Xame." 

This  stupendous  •■  iiiyst(>ry  "  of  course  cannot  consist 
in  a  mere  external  relation,  for  there  is  nothing  "  stu- 
pendous" in  that.  A  baj^tized  hyj)ocrite  or  infidel 
undergoes  just  such  an  outward  change;  nor  is  thei-e 


72 


High  Ciii;i!(  ii  Episcopacv. 


any  "  mystery  "  attending  it.  When  we  come  to  speak 
of  the  language  used  at  "  confirmation  "  of  these  sub- 
jects of  "  spiritual  regeneration,"  much  further  evidence 
will  be  adduced  of  the  nature  of  this  "  stupendou-^ 
change"  wrought  at  the  "  regenerating  font." 

Let  us  uow  look  at  the  subject  of  "  adult  baptism." 
With  much  of  the  same  phraseology,  we  find  several 
additional  hints  of  the  meaning  of  regeneration  in  the 
Episcopal  sense.  The  iifisons  are  ."aid  to  be  "  conceived 
and  born  in  sin,"  "live  in  sin,"'  "cannot  please  God." 
They  mvd  to  b.'  "  d,-liverrd  from  Gods  wratii."  God  is 
ni'i'ln  --'■']  :is  "the  lip  of  those  who  believe;"  and  after  re- 
]>;  riiii.  'h.  ■  conversation  of  the  Saviour  with  Nicodemus 
(,L>lio  :;  ,  ihe  minister  teaches  as  follows:  "Hereby 
you  may  perceive  the  great  necessHij  of  this  sacrament, 
whore  it  can  be  had."  "  Dcmbt  ye  not,  therefore,  but 
firmly  believe  that  he  Avill  favorably  receive  these  pre- 
sent persons,  truly  repenting  and  coming  unto  him  bt 
FAITH ;  that  he  will  grant  them  remission  of  their  sins, 
the  blessing  of  eternal  life,  &c."  Thus  far,  nearly  every 
thing  is  suitable  for  the  adult  to  be  baptized.  But  look 
how  the  matter  stands  after  baptism  :  "  Seeing  now  that 
these  persons  are  regenerate  and  grafted  into  the  body  of 
Christ's  church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto  Almighty  God 
for  these  benefits."  "  We  yield  thee  humble  thanks,  O 
heavenly  Father.  &c.  Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to  these 
persons,  that  being  nom'  borx  again,  and  made  heirs 
of  everlasting  salvation  (viz.  by  baptism),  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  they  may  continue  thy  servants, 
&c."  And  then  the  godfathers  and  godmothers  are  ex- 
horted to  put  them  in  mind,  *  *  *  *  *  jq  ^gg  ^jj 
diligence,  *  *  *  that  so  they  may  grow  in  grace  and 
in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  But  can 
any  thing  be  more  preposterous  or  more  delusive  than 
to'aihbvss  such  language  to  all  adults  at  baptism? 
After  most  seriptnially  representing  repentance  and 
fdHli  as  indispen-able  t'>  "a  favorable  reception"  with 
Christ,  ALL  :trc  as<ii:'i'il  fii;;t  tii.'V  arc  '•  now  born  again, 
and  have  put  on  Ciiri-t,  '  ■  ar.>  made  the  children  of 
God  by  faith,  and  made  lieirs  of  everlasting  life,"  and  of 


The  (jk  Sr.Mox  Magl-h. 


73 


(•(iiirsc  the)''  must  have  repi'uU'd  and  believed!  But  in 
the  judf^nient  of  charity,  is  tliis  true  of  all  baptized 
adults?  Was  it  true  of  Siuiou  Masjus?  What  uiinis- 
ter,  unless  possessed  of  oniniscioufe,  can  liave  the  hardi- 
hood to  pronounce  such  a  decision?  Can  any  thing  be 
better  adapted  to  flatter  all  self-deceivers  and  hypocrites 
with  the  notion  that  they  "are  alive  when  they  are 

The  same  monstrous  teach  in  IT  is  found  in  "the  cate- 
chism, to  be  learned  before  confirmation."  The  youth 
is  taught  to  say,  "I  was  in  baptism  made  a  member  of 
(Ju-iff,  the  child  of  God.  and  an  inheritor  of  the  king- 
dom of  licaven."  He  is  also  tauicht  "that  there  is  re- 
quired of  persons  (adults)  to  be  baptized" — repentance, 
"  whereby  they  f  u'sake  sin.  and  faith" — and  yet.  after 
confirmation  by  the  Itishop,  he  ])rays  :  "  Defend,  O 
Lord,  this  thy  child,  with  thy  heavenly  grace,  that  he 
may  continue  thine  forever."  Of  course  the  unavoidable 
inference  is,  that  all  adults  ever  baptized  and  confirmed, 
are  po.ssessed  of  true  repentauce  and  saving  faith !  But 
is  not  this  to  lay  "a  snare  and  a  trap"  for  the  souls  of 
men?  If  this  is  not  the  "  opus  operatnm  "  of  the  Papist, 
it  is  very  little  better.  It  is  true,  therefore,  that  "  these 
liturgical  services  retain  certain  expressions  which 
savor  of  an  o]nis  operidum  effi<'acy  in  the  sacrams'nis." 
Xor  is  it  at  ill  surprising  that  with  sui-h  a  basis  of 
ojiorations,  the  Puseyites  "  undertook  to  twist  the  whole 
tVamework  of  the  church,  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical, 
into  harmony  with  the.se  shreds  of  Popery,  in  a  word, 
I '  >  Romanize  the  Establishment."  "The  fruits  of  this  move- 
lUL'nt  were,  as  might  have  been  expected,  the  revival 
and  resumption  of  superstitious  rites  and  fantastic 
mummeries,  the  cast-off  rags  of  the  old  imposture,  and 
a  large  secession  of  ministers  and  members  to  Rome."* 
There  was  truth,  therefore,  in  the  pithy  sentiment  of 
Lord  Chatham,  "  Calvinistic  articles  and  a  Popish  litur- 
gy." Yet  Bishop  Short  assures  us  "  there  is  ewery  rea- 
son to  applaud  the  conduct  of  Archbishop  Cranmcr  and 


74 


High  Church  Episujpacy. 


admire  our  standards,  because  they  so  nearly  resemble 
the  works  (the  five  Popish  mass-books")  of  the  same  sort 
which  preceded  them  ;  and  to  rejoice  that  *  *  *  " 
they  are  but  amended  transcripts  of  those  which  our 
forerunners  established  !"* 

Now  it  is  prccisL'ly  at  this  jioint  where  the  argument 
of  certain  cxcelh'nt  brethren  in  England  and  America 
of  the  EvaiiLii  lii-al  Low  Church  party,  labors  and  shows 
its  woakiii'ss.  Mr.  Goode,  indeed,  tries  to  sustain  the 
Calviiiistic  iiiti  ipretation  of  the  liturgy  by  assuming 
that  "  it  .si(/j;-iyses  all  interested  in  its  services  to  be  the 
true  and  living  members  of  Christ's  body,  the  church. "t 
But  this  very  thing,  this  false  mpposition,  is  one  of  the 
main  gnunids  of  objection.  Ministers  have  no  rational 
or  scriptural  basis  for  such  an  assumption.  It  is  a  dan- 
gerous delusion.  It  savors  of  the  doctrine  of  "the 
father  of  lies,"  "Ye  shall  not  surel}'  die."  "Our 
church,"  says  .Mr.  Goode,  "  clearly  requires  in  adults 
faith  and  rejicniance  as  the  necessary  qualifications  for 
being  made  in  baptism  sons  of  God."  But  if  they  have 
faith  and  repentance,  they  are  "  sons  of  God  "  without 
baptism.  Besides,  what  becomes  of  the  thanks  to  Al- 
mighty God,  offered  in  everi/  case  without  exception,  that 
the  same  persons  are  "  now  born  again  and  made  heii-s 
of  everlasting  life  ?  "  Is  it  true  that  all  who  are  thus 
baptized  are  believers?  And  if  not  "after  confirmation," 
why  does  the  bishop  assiune  unconditionally,  that  eveiy 
confirmed  person  is  "  a  child  of  God."  and  therefore 
pray  that  "he  may  costi^UE  thine  forever  f  "  "Our 
Reformers  and  early  divines,"  adds  Mr.  Goode,  "  clearly 
used  the  baptismal  service  with  the  notion  that  we  are  to 
presume  that  the  infant  baptized  is  one  of  the  elect,  *  * 
and  will  fulfil  the  terms  of  the  covenant."  Thus  he  ac- 
counts for  the  fact  that  all  such  infants  are  said  to  be 
regenerated  in  baptism.  But  this  is  just  no  explanation 
at  all.  It  only  complicates  the  matter  and  makes  the 
difficulty  worse.  The  question  instantly  arises ,  Is  this 
opinion  true?    If  not,  if  "  our  Reformers  "  were  still  in 

*Hist.  of  the  Ch.  of  Enj:.,  p.  201. 
•;  On  Knpti-.ni.  cliap.  0. 


Shreds  of  I'opkisy  i.\  tiik  Liti;i;(;v.  75 


the  darkness  of  Popeiy  on  this  point,  why  require  sound 
Protestants  of  the  present  day  to  repeat  and  sanction 
such  deadly  error? 

I  admit,  with  Sir.  Goode,  that  the  liturgy  was  ap- 
l)roved  by  such  liigh  Calvinists  as  Bucer  and  Peter  Mar- 
tyr, whom  Cranmer  had  made  professors  of  divinity  at 
Cambridge  and  Oxford,  and  that  some  phraseology' ap- 
pears in  "  Lutlier's  Service  for  Infant  Baptism  "  similar 
to  that  of  the  Prayer  Book.  The  same  is  true  of  other 
similar  documents  of  that  period,  both  public  and  pri- 
vate. So  even  the  vehement  spirit  of  the  intrepid  Lu- 
ther was  long  in  reaching  the  true  Protestant  result,  that 
Popery  is  "  the  man  of  sin,"  not  to  be  reformed  but  de- 
stroyed ;  and  that  the  only  way  of  escaping  her  plagiies 
is  "  TO  COME  OUT  OF  HEii."  We  know  and  lament  his 
iibstinate  blindness  in  the  matter  of  consubstantiation. 
The  great  cause  of  gratitude  to  God  is,  that,  emerging  as 
those  holy  men  did,  suddenly  from  Popish  midnight  to 
dazzling  noonday,  they  were  enabled  to  see  so  much  with 
clearness  and  scriptural  accuracy.  We  gratefully  recog- 
nize and  reverence  them  as  "great  instruments  of  God," 
but  that  is  no  reason  why  we  should  canonize  their  errors. 
That  they  did  not  hold  the  modern  notions  of  High 
C'luirchmen  in  regard  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments, 
Mr.  Goode  has  clearly  shown.  But  neither  he  nor  any 
other  can  escape  the  logical  conclusion  that  their  formu- 
laries were  suffered  to  retain  some  "  relics  of  the  Amo- 
rites" — not  ouly  at  the  expense  of  logical  cousistcncy, 
but  to  the  serious  detriment  of  the  glorious  cause  which 
was  so  near  to  their  hearts.  It  is  undeniably  true, 
therefore,  that  these  things  furnished  only  too  plausible 
a  pretext,  to  say  the  least,  for  the  Oxford  movement, 
which  "  dwells  upon  the  external  ritual  parts  of  relig- 
ious service,  and  which  speaks  of  the  sacraments  *  * 
as  instruments  of  salvation  in  a  justifying  and  casual 
^euse."*  The  Bishop  of  Llaudaff  commends  the  wis- 
dom and  charity  of  the  English  Reformers  in  gently 
ueaning  the  public  mind  from  a  false  religion,  and  he 


Chai-oc  of  ll.c  Rishop  uf  WiiK'liesler. 


76 


Hl(;ll  C^HUliCH  Ep]^S(•OI'A<•Y. 


concludes  "  tliat  many  ceremonies  which  they  retained 
would  probably  be  omitted  if  the  work  were  begun  anew 
in  our  own  time.'"*  But,  if  this  be  true,  in  the  name 
of  all  that  is  precious  in  genuine  religion  why  maintain 
in  use,  as  inviolable,  forms  of  devotion  which  misrepre- 
sent at  once  the  worshippers  and  the  truth  of  God?  Why 
not  "  purge  out  this  old,  offensive  leaven,"  that  the 
church  may  become  in  the  true  sense,  "  a  new  lump  ?" 
Why  persist  in  the  moral  treason  which  thus  "  brings 
aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy  ?"  These  are  sad  speci- 
mens of  "  admirable  liturgy,"  "  incomparable  liturgy," 
which  we  are  told  "  is  always  purer  than  the  church  it- 
self"— especially  that  one  "  which  commands  the  admi- 
ration of  the  world !  " 

But  whilst  wo  are  constrained  to  admit  that,  as  a 
question  of  iiitcrjiretatiou  of  the  liturgy,  the  High 
Cluu'ch  iiavc  (lie  l)est  of  the  argument  as  against  the 
Low  Churchmeii — tliere  is  another  and  a  far  more  im- 
portant aspect  of  the  general  sul)jcct. 

Do  tlic  Holy  Scriptures  teach  that  regeneration  is 
solely  and  cxchisively  applied  "  to  one  impjortant  effect  of 
baptism  once  administered,"  "  using  the  very  terms  as 
convertible":'"'  Do  they  affirm  that  ''baptism  separated 
from  regeneration  ceases  to  be  a  sacrament "?"  This  is 
High  Church  Episcopacy,  but  is  it  scriptural  doctrine? 
We  can  only  refer  to  a  tew  of  those  obvious  arguments 
which  overthrow  this  dangerous  and  delusive  dogma. 

1.  How  was  this  question  regartled  under  the  old 
economy,  when  the  same  thing  was  signified  by  a  differ- 
ent sign  ?  l^aul  tells  us,  "  Circumcision  was  to  the  Jews 
llie  seal  of  the  rigliteousness  of  faith,"  just  as  baptism 
now  is.  Horn.  4  :  11.  But  how  careful  is  he  to  distin- 
guish l)etwofii  "  tlic  sign  of  circumcision"  and  the 
inward  work  of  tin;  Holy  Spirit.  Hear  him:  "He 
is  not  a  Jew  wlio  is  one  outwardly,  neither  is  that 
circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh.  But 
he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is 
that  of  the  heart,  in  the  Spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter, 


*  Change. 


ScRiPTUJRE  Doctrine  of  Regeneration.  77 


whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."  Certainly  if 
language  has  meaning,  this  teaches  that  "  the  sign  of 
circumcision  in  the  flesh"  was  not  always  and  "  imme- 
diately" attended  with  "the  circumcision  of  the  heart," 
and  that  a  man  might  be  a  "  Jeiv  outwardly,"  without 
being  "  one  inwardly."  If  this  is  true  of  that  sign, 
why  not  of  baptism? 

2.  The  blessed  Saviour  expressly  excludes  all  who  are 
not  "  born  again,"  "  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit," 
from  seeing  or  entering  into  "  the  kingdom  of  God."* 
But  are  High  Church  Episcopalians  prepared  to  take 
this  ground  ?  Do  the  millions  of  the  children  of  anti- 
pcedobaptists,  Quakers,  Jews,  Mohammedans,  heathens, 
wlio  die  in  infancy,  inherit  this  dreadful  fate  ?  Calvin- 
i^ts  have  been  often  falsely  charged  with  teaching  "  in- 
fant damnation" — but  here  it  is  in  its  most  fearful  form. 
It  is  true  "  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
-aved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."! 
Tliis  is  viewed  as  one  of  the  strong  texts  of  the  High 
Church  and  of  Popery.  The  Episcopal  Whitby  however, 
understood  it  correctly.  He  says  in  his  commentary — "In 
the  second  clause,  baptism  is  omitted."  "Why  so  ?  "  Be- 
cause," he  adds,  "  it  is  not  simply  the  want  of  baptism, 
but  the  contemptuous  neglect  of  it  which  makes  men 
guilty  of  damnation,  otherwise  infants  might  be  damned 
for  the  mistakes  or  profaneness  of  their  parents."  The 
truth  is,  that  this  passage  no  more  requires  baptism  as 
indispensable  to  infant  salvation  than  it  requires  faith. 
In  regard  to  adults,  there  is  an  important  sense,  as 
Whitby  teaches,  in  which  "  the  want  of  baptism  "  is  a 
damning  offence,  i.  e.,  where  it  is  the  fruit  of  "  contempt- 
uous neglect."  But  the  same  is  true  of  reading  the 
Scriptures,  attending  on  the  preaching  of  the  word, 
and,  indeed,  almost  any  other  Christian  duty.  "He  that 
despiseth,  despiseth  not  men  but  God."  So  also  Peter, 
alluding  to  the  great  deliverance  of  Noah  by  the  ark, 
says,  "  the  like  figure  whereunto  baptism  doth  also  now 
save  us,"  but  Paul  tells  us  "  we  are  saved  by  hope," 
^Uohn  3:  3-7.  t  Mark  IC:  IG. 


78  High  Chtjech  Episcopacy. 


aud  "  confession  -with  the  mouth  is  made  imto  salvation." 
But  is  it  true  that  none  are  saved  but  those  who  "confess 
with  the  mouth?  "  Far  from  it.  The  promise  of  salva- 
tion is  most  commonly  made  "  to  those  who  believe  " — 
but  baptism  and  "  confession  with  the  mouth,"  under 
some  peculiar  circumstances,  especially  in  times  of  per- 
secution and  as  the  form  of  public  profession  may  also 
be  necessary ;  or  at  least  the  contemptuous  neglect  of 
either  would  be  fatal.  This  view  harmonizes  all  the 
texts  of  the  subject  in  beautiful  consistency.  No  one 
imagines  the  thief  on  the  cross  was  regenerated  by  bap- 
tism. 

3.  If  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  always  accom- 
panies baptism,  would  Paul  have  said,  "/  thank  God  that 
I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains" — "  Christ 
sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  If 
"  the  grace  and  truth  which  came  by  Jesus  Christ  "  were 
absolutely,  immediately  and  invariably  associated  with 
the  external  rite  of  baptism,  would  the  apostle  have 
spoken  thus  ?  Nay,  he  elsewhere  speaks  gratefully  of 
what  God  had  done  by  him  :  "  In  Christ  Jesus  I  have 
begotten  you  through  the  gospel,"  and  of  Onesimus, 
"  whom  I  have  begotten  in  my  bonds."  (2  Cor.  4  : 15, 
Philem.  10.) 

4.  The  same  result  is  reached  when  we  examine  the 
numerous  passages  which  speak  of  regeneration  or  use 
equivalent  terms :  "  To  as  many  as  received  him  to 
them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
them  which  believe  on  his  name,  who  were  bom,  not  of 
blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  but  of  God."*  Can 
this  possibly  mean  external  baptism,  of  which  not  the 
remotest  hint  had  before  been  given  ?  How  then  can  it 
be  truly  said  that  these  are  "  convertible  terms  ?  "  And 
so  in  the  texts  before  referred  to  (John  3  :  5-11),  -when 
our  Lord  told  Nicodemus  of  the  necessity  of  the  new 
birth,  if  he  had  meant  baptism  with  water,  Avith  which 
the  Jews  were  perfectly  familiarized  in  their  "  divers 
baptisms  "  or  washings,  is  it  likely  ^Christ  would  have 

*  John  1:11-13. 


Teachixg  of  the  New  Testament.  79 


introduced  the  subject  with  so  much  solemnity — "Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  agaiu  [or 
from  above,]  [or  baptized'],  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God."  And  when  Nicodemus  strangely  misunderstood 
him  to  mean  a  second  natural  birth,  why  did  not  "  the 
teacher  sent  from  God  "  immediately  correct  his  mis- 
take by  adding,  "  I  mean  only  water  baptism !  "  Why 
still  further  seem  to  darken  so  simple  a  subject  by  refer- 
iug  to  "  the  wind  which  bloweth  where  it  listeth,"  &c. 

5.  If  regeneration,  or  being  born  again,  be  only  an- 
other expression  for  baptism,  so  that  these  are  "convert- 
ible terms,"  let  us  try  the  substitution  in  a  few  passages, 
and  see  whether  it  will  make  sense.  "  Whosoever  is 
born  of  God  (i.  e.,  baptized,)  doth  not  commit  sin — can- 
not sin."  Is  this  true  in  any  intelligible  sense,  of  all 
baptized  persons  ?  "  Whosoever  believeth,  is  begotten 
(if  God."  But,  said  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  "what  doth 
liiuder  me  to  be  baptized?"  "If  thou  believest  with 
all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest,"  i.  e.,  mayest  "  be  born  of 
God."  But  according  to  the  first  passage,  if  the  eunuch 
believed,  he  was  already  "born  of  God." 

6.  There  were  special  reasons  in  the  days  of  primi- 
tive Christianity,  as  before  intimated,  amid  the  fires  of 
persecution,  in  the  hazard  of  temporal  benefit  and 
even  of  life,  which  stared  the  new  convert  in  the  face, 
why  the  open  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  and  the  ex- 
ternal badge  or  form  of  that  profession,  should  in  some 
instances  appear  to  stand  in  close  connection  the  one 
with  the  other.  Thus:  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  unto  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."  Again  :  "  By 
one  Spirit  we  are  baptized  into  one  body."  "  We  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  *  *  *  that 
we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  So  it  is  said : 
"  Whosoever  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh,  is  born  of  God.  No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  But  it  surely  needs  no 
proof  that  "  the  confession  of  Christ,"  as  in  the  case  of 
Simon  Magus,  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and  indeed  of  all 
other  hypocrites  and  self-deceivers,  was  no  evidence  of 


80  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


being  born  of  the  Spirit— and  the  same  is  true  of  bap- 
tism as  the  outward  form  and  recognition  of  discipleship. 


term  "  regeneration,"  &c.,  is  said  to  be  by  another  and 
a  very  different  instrument.  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he 
us," — there  is  the  divine  power.  But  how  was  this 
blessed  work  performed  ?  Not  by  baptism,  but  "  with 
THE  WORD  OF  TRUTH."*  There  is  not  in  the  whole 
Bible  a  text  which  ascribes  regeneration  to  baptism  as 
explicitly  as  this  attributes  it  to  "  the  word  of  truth." 
But  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  not  invariably  at- 
tended with  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  same 
is  true  of  baptism. 

We  are  told  by  High  Churchmen  that  this  is  "  the 
only  sacrament  by  which  the  gospel  can  be  preached  or 
its  distinctive  grace  conveyed  to  an  infant  mind  ;"  and 
much  pious  horror  is  exhibited  at  that  view  of  the  sub- 
ject which  denies  "  the  Avaters  of  pardon  and  of  promise  " 
to  an  infant  of  infidel  or  atheist !  Such  infant,  dying, 
"  goes  into  eternity  with  nought  to  impart  a  differeiice  of 
glory  in  the  resurrection,  nought  by  which  angels  may 
know  that  it  had  come  from  a  Christian  land  !"t  But 
this  is  surely  giving  "  the  angels  "  very  small  credit  for 
intelligence  !  Besides,  the  same  writer  says  of  Presby- 
terians :  "  They  have  no  baptism !"  Yet  he  rebukes 
our  church  for  declining  "  to  set  faith's  mark  upon 
every  infant's  brow,"  without  respect  to  parentage  or 
other  cii'cumstauces !  That,  however,  is  a  subject  on 
which  we  cannot  now  enter.  It  may  be  proper  simply 
to  remark  that  if  our  High  Churchmen  had  lived  in  the 
days  of  circumcision,  which  was  restricted  to  the  infants 
of  Jews  by  birth  and  proselytism,  their  anxiety  to  en- 
large the  boundaries  of  angelic  knowledge  would  have 
found  ample  scope  for  exercise ! 

The  several  proofs  now  adduced  must  suffice  as  hints 
of  the  manner  of  the  Scriptures  in  speaking  of  this 
topic.    But  before  closing  this  chapter  we  refer  to  an 
objection.    It  is  said  with  much  confidence,  that  our 
*  James  1:18.  f  Clergyman  Looking,  &c. 


7.  The  same  spiritual  influence 


TiiuE  Presbyterian  Doctrine.  <s1 

owa  Coufessiou  of  Faith  teaches  "  baptismal  regenera- 
tion," and  "  our  ministers  dare  not  bring  it  forward  as 
tliere  exhibited  !*  Let  us  look  at  this  most  extraordi- 
nary assertion. 

The  proof  is  said  to  be  in  chap.  28,  sec.  1  and  B. 
These  passages  are  sufficient,  we  are  told,  if  they  could 
be  fairly  brought  before  the  niiuds  of  the  people,  "  to 
compel  our  ministers  to  make  these  living  waters  free  for 
all,  or  parents  *  *  would  be  driven  into  the  (Epis- 
copal) Church."!  By  reference  to  tlie  chapter  cited,  we 
find  as  follows :  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament,  not  only  for 
the  solemn  admission  of  t!ie  party  baptized  into  the  visi- 
ble church,  but  also  to  be  unto  him  a  sign  and  a  sijal  of 
the  covenant  of  grace,  of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of 
regeneration,  of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up 
unto  God,  to  walk  in  newness  of  lift."  This  is  the  geu- 
oral  doctrine.  But  to  whom  are  tiiesc  benefits  given  ? 
"The  efficacy  of  baptism  is  not  tied  to  that  moment  oi' 
time  when  it  is  administered.  By  thk  uigiit  use  of 
tills  ordinance,  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered, 
l)ut  really  exhibited  and  confarred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
such  (whether  of  age  or  infants),  as  that  grace  belongeth 
unto,  according  to  the  counsel  of  God's  own  will,  in  his 
appointed  time."  But  does  this  teach  that  "  regenera- 
tion is  the  one  immediate  effect  of  baptism?"  Does  it 
say  that  "without  regeneration,  it  is  no  sacrament?" 
Preposterous!  Presbyterians  rejoice  to  hold  and  teach 
that  "by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance"  these  benefits 
:itv!"  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  upon  adults,  viz. 

in  the  case  of  the  other  sacraments),  upon  "  worthy 
ivoeivers,"  i.  e.,  true  believers.  But  it  is  expressly 
taught  a  few  lines  before,  that  "  grace  and  salvation  are 
U'lt  so  inseparably  annexed  unto  it  (baptism)  that  no 
IM  i'son  can  be  regenerated  or  saved  without  it,  or  that 
all  that  are  baptized  are  undoubtedly  regenerated." 
And  is  this  the  same  with  the  High  Church  dogma, 
"  that  baptism  and  regeneration  are  convertible  terms?" 
As  regards  infant  baptism,  Presbyterians  joyfully  teach 

*  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,  p.  59,  74.  N.  Y.  Churchman. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  74. 


82  High  Church  Eplscopacy. 


with  the  venerable  Dr.  A.  Alexander,  that  "  there  may 
be  such  a  thing  as  baptismal  regeneration,"  i.  e.,  regen- 
eration by  the  Spirit  of  God,  at  (lie  time  of  baptism  ; 
and  parents,  "  by  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance, "  are 
entitled  to  expect  such  a  blessing  in  connection  with  this 
means  of  grace.  But  by  what  sophistry  can  this  be 
made  to  mean  that  every  baptized  person  is  regenerated 
or  changed  in  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit?  Yet  the 
Episcopal  minister  is  compelled  to  say  at  every  such  bap- 
tism, "  We  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks  that  it  hath  pleased 
thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit !" 
How  many  or  how  few  are  regenerated  at  baptism,  Pres- 
byterians pretend  not  to  know,  for  the  Scriptures  have 
not  informed  us  on  that  point.  But  thousands  of  most 
painful  examples  in  after  life,  demonstrate  that  not  all 
baptized  infants  are  thus  "created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus," 
or  "  born  of  the  Spirit." 


The  Burial  Service. 


83 


CHAPTER  yil. 

DIFFICULTIES  OF  BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION    IN  CON- 
NECTION WITH  THE  BURIAL  SERVICE. 

We  have  been  investigating  the  decided  Calvinism  of 
the  XXXIX  Articles,  as  adopted  by  an  "Arminian 
clergy,"  and  the  Popish  characteristics  of  the  "  Liturgy," 
especially  as  they  stand  in  bold  contrast  with  the  pro- 
fessed Protestantism  of  the  Episcopal  system.  I  must 
not  omit  to  say  that  in  one  particular  the  Prayer  Bo»k 
is  remarkably  consistent  with  itself.  I  will  explain  my 
meaning. 

1.  After  baptism,  the  minister  offers  "thanks  to  Al- 
mighty God,"  "that  this  child  is  regenerated  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  received  for  his  own  child." 

2.  In  "  the  Catechism  to  be  learned  before  confirma- 
tion," the  same  "  child  "  is  taught  to  say,  "  In  baptism  I 
was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God  and  an 
inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  to  "heartily 
thank  God  that  he  hath  called  me  (the  child)  to  this 
state  of  salvation." 

3.  Immediately  after  "  confirmation,"  at  the  age  of 
fifteen  or  sixteen,*  the  bishop  prays  "  the  Lord  to  de- 
fend the  child,  *  *  *  tiiat  he  may  continue  thine 
forever,"  i.  e.,  in  "  the  state  of  salvation."  Thus  far 
there  is  perfect  harmony.  Not  a  word  of  the  j)ossibility 
of  baptism  without  "  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit," 
not  the  remotest  suspicion  of  the  youth  having  fallen 
from  "a  state  of  salvation"  by  "sin  after  baptism." 
Yet  the  16th  Article  expressly  says,  "After  we  have  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  we  may  depart  from  grace  given 
and  fall  into  sin ;  and  by  the  grace  of  God  we  may  arise 
again  and  amend  our  lives."  But  the  bishop,  at "  con- 
firmation," is  required  to  make  no  reference  to  such  a 
possible  state  of  things  as  "  a  fall  into  sin  and  departing 
from  grace !"    Nor  does  he  even  allude  to  the  inquiry 

*  Dr.  Hook's  Diet.,  Art.  Confirmation. 


84  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


Avhether  the  person  has  "  ai-isen  again  and  amended  his 
life !"  This  seems  to  be  left  to  the  Rector,  who  teaches 
the  catechism  to  prepare  for  confirmation.  It  is  taken 
for  granted,  absolutely  by  the  bishop,  that  having  been 
"  baptized  and  regenerated  "  in  infancy,  the  youth  is 
still  "the  child  of  God"  and  in  a  state  of  salvation." 
For  he  has  learned  the  catechism  and  has  come  to  be 
confirmed. 

4.  But  there  is  something  worse  than  all  this,  though 
perfectly  harmonious  with  the  dangerous  delusions  afore- 
•  said.  The  Prayer  Book  contains  "an  order  for  the 
burial  of  the  dead,"  but  it  is  "  not  to  be  used  for  any 
unbaptized  person,"  nor  "  for  persons  who  die  excom- 
municate," nor  for  suicides.  Here  again  the  minister  is 
required  to  say  over  all  but  the  three  classes  just  men- 
tioned, "  It  hath  pleased  God  to  take  out  of  this  world 
the  soul  of  our  deceased  brother.  We  therefore  com- 
mit his  body  to  the  ground,  *  *  *  looking  for  the 
general  resurrection  *  *  and  the  life  of  the  world  to 
come,  *  *  *  when  the  corruptible  bodies  of  those 
who  sleep  in  him  (Christ)  shall  be  changed  and  made 
like  unto  his  glorious  body.  Then  shall  be  said  or  sung, 
I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying  unto  me.  Write, 
from  henceforth  blessed  are  the  dead  who  die  in  the  Lord ; 
even  so  saith  the  Spirit,  for  they  rest  from  their  labors."* 

*  We  quote  "  the  American  Prayer  Book."  As  this  "burial 
service  "  stands  in  the  English  copies,  it  is  still  more  objectiona- 
ble. Thus  "  while  earth  is  cast  upon  the  body,"  this  is  said:  "It 
hath  pleased  Almighty  God  of  his  great  mercy  to  take  unto  himself 
the  soul  of  our  dear  departed  brotlier.  *  *  *  We  commit  his 
body  to  the  ground  in  sure  and  certain  hope  of  eternal  life,  &c." 
Tlien  the  priest  says  :  "  Almighty  God,  *  *  *  we  give  thee 
hearty  thanks,  for  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  deliver  this  our 
brother  out  of  the  miseries  of  this  sinful  world,  &c."  Again  in 
tlie  Collect,  they  say,  "  That  we  may  rest  in  him  (Christ)  as  our 
hope  is,  this  our  brother  doth." 

Now  is  it  true,  that  when  God  "  takes  unto  himself"  the  soul  of 
a  notoriously  wicked  person,  dying  in  his  sins,  it  is  "  of  his  great 
mercy?"  And  is  it  a  cause  of  hearty  thanks  that  it  hath  pleased 
God  to  deliver  such  a  brother  out  of  the  miseries  of  this  sinful 
world,"  if  he  is  plunged  into  the  torments  of  the  future  world  ? 
Is  there  not  here  a  dangerous  delusion,  a  monstrous  perversion  of 
the  truth. 


Dangerous  Delusions. 


85 


Several  other  prayers  are  given  of  the  same  tenor.  And 
this  is  the  style  in  which  "  the  church  "  buries  thousands 
who  have  died  without  the  slightest  evidence  of  true 
piety.  Having  been  "  regenerated  in  baptism,"  she  de- 
ludes all  such  with  the  notion  that  they  remain  so  at 
"confirmation,"  and  when  dead,  she  utters  over  their 
corpses  the  triumphs  of  faith,  "  O  death,  where  is  thy 
sting?  O  grave,  where  is  thy  victory?  Thanks  be  to 
God  who  giveth  us  the  victory  througia  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.    Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory." 

We  have  thus  traced  the  High  Churchman,  whose 
"sins  original  and  actual"  have  been  washed  away  in 
baptismal  regeneration  in  infancy,  from  "the  waters  of 
pardon  and  promise"  to  his  brightthrone  in  heaven !  But 
the  case  is  even  more  abhorrent  to  reason  and  piety  (if 
that  were  possible)  in  the  example  of  the  person  6ap- 
tized  in  adult  years.  When  he  is  dead,  though  like 
Simon  Magus  (Acts  8 :  13)  he  may  have  received  the 
ordinance  while  "  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bonds 
of  iniquity" — even  such  a  person  is  laid  in  the  grave 
while  priest  and  people  use  the  same  language  of 
triumph,  utter  the  same  shout  of  victory !  Did  the  arch 
deceiver  ever  devise  a  more  cunning  snare  for  the  delu- 
sion and  perdition  of  souls !  Yet  for  this  "  burial  office," 
Mr.  Van  Deusen  says,  "the  warmest  admiration  has 
come  from  all  hearts!"*  On  the  contrary,  we  believe 
that  as  used  over  the  graves  of  wicked  persons,  though 
baptized  in  infancy  or  adult  age,  it  must  excite  unmin- 
gled  horror  in  every  enlightened  mind.  Even  the  beau- 
tiful passages  of  Scripture  so  abundantly  quoted,  are 
perverted  in  all  such  cases  to  the  worst  purposes,  and  iu 
fact  are  made  to  utter  practical  falsehood.!  Such  arc 
some  of  the  admirable  features  of  that  "  best  system  or 
mode  for  extending  and  perpetuating  Christianity  in  this 

*  Christianity  in  tlie  Republic,  p.  148. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  91.  Why  .should  baptism  always  be  attended  witli 
"  regeneration  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  when  in  tlie  Lord's  sup)>er 
"the  wicked  and  such  as  he  void  of  lively  faith,"  "do  eat  and 
drink  to  their  condemnation,"  for  so  says  the  29th  Article,  as  also 
the  25th. 


86 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


or  any  other  nation."  Even  Toplady,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  Episcopal  divines,  could  utter  the  follow- 
ing humiliating  confession :  "  We  have  already  for- 
sook the  good  old  paths  trod  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
*  *  *  *  *  Our  liturgy,  our  articles,  and  our 
homilies,  still  keep  possession  of  our  church  walls,  but 
we  pray,  we  subscribe,  we  assert  one  way — we  believe, 
we  preach,  we  write  another.  In  the  desk  we  are  verbal 
Calvinists,  but  in  the  pulpit  we  tag  the  performance  with 
a  few  minutes  "  entertainment  compiled  from  fragments 
bequeathed  to  us  by  Pelagius,  Arminius,  Arius,  Socinus 
and  others  still  worse  than  these."  "  Is  there  a  single 
HERESY,"  he  adds,"that  ever  annoyed  the  Christian  world, 
which  has  not  its  partisans  among  those  who  profess 
conformity  to  the  Church  of  England.*  This  was  said 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  last  century — and  whether  it  is 
less  true  of  our  High  Church  Episcopacy,  is  no  very 
doubtful  point.  Toplady,  and  many  others  of  the  Eng- 
lish Episcopal  Church,  were  not  quite  so  sanguine  as  Mr. 
Van  D.  seems  to  be,  that  the  "  church  system,"  which 
(he  says)  "  Christ  himself  instituted  and  prescribed,  is 
the  best  mode  for  the  dissemination  of  morality  and  re- 
ligion throughout  the  nation."t 

There  is  a  method  sometimes  employed  to  evade  the 
shocking  conclusions  thus  lawfully  deduced  from  the 
"  Liturgy"  on  baptismal  regeneration.  But  it  is  a 
mere  evasion,  and  of  course  it  is  entirely  without  foun- 
dation in  the  Scriptures.  On  this  subject,  indeed,  as  the 
Rev.  Geo.  Stanley  Faber,|  an  English  Episcopal  minis- 
ter, has  demonstrated,  "the  church  is  a  house  divided 
against  itself" 

1.  Some,  as  Dr.  Waterland  and  one  or  two  bishops, 
have  taught  that  "  regeneration  or  the  new  birth  is  not 
an  internal  change  of  the  soul,"  "  but  only  an  external 
change  of  man's  relative  state  towards  God,"  "not  a 
moral  change  of  disposition."  Thus  the  baptized  infant 
of  a  believer  would  sustain  a  widely  different  outward 

*  Works,  p.  275. 

t  Christianity  in  the  Kepublic,  pp.  91-9. 
I  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Eegeneration. 


Some  Evasions. 


87 


relation  to  the  church  and  her  Head,  from  that  _  of  an 
iinbaptized  child  of  heathen  parents.  This  interpreta- 
tion, however,  is  shown  by  Mr.  Faber  to  be  utterly 
false.  For  the  express  terms  of  the  Holy  Oracles  prove 
that  scriptural  "  regeneration "  is  "  a  birth  from 
above,"  "  a  birth  from  the  God  of  heaven,"  "  a  birth 
from  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  contrasted  with  a  physical  birth 
of  flesh,"  "which  contrast  vanishes  if  we  limit  the  sense 
to  a  mere  outward  change  of  relation."  Persons  thus 
"  born  of  God  "  "  have  ^^ower  (or  privilege)  to  become 
the  sons  of  God,"  "  do  not  commit  sin,"  "  cannot  sin," 
"  love  the  brethren,"  "  know  God,"  and  "  overcome 
the  Avorld,"  So  also  they  "  are  born  again,  not  of  cor- 
ruptible seed,  but  by  the  word  of  God,"  and  "  baptism, 
not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  doth  save 
us."  Thus,  adds  Mr.  Faber,  "  the  terms  used  in  Scrip- 
tui'e  indicate  a  moral  change  of  disposition,  obedience 
to  the  truth  through  the  Spirit,  and  purification  of  the 
soul."  To  say,  therefore,  that  "regeneration"  is  an 
external  or  relative  change  only,  is  a  manifest  perver- 
sion of  the  truth. 

2.  Another,  and  the  true  scriptural  view  of  regen- 
eration, according  to  Faber,  is  that  it  is  "a  moral 
change  of  disposition  (or  change  of  heart)  associated 
with  a  change  of  relative  condition,  of  which  baptism  is 
the  outward  and  visible  sign."  "  It  is  a  moral  conver- 
sion of  the  heart " — "  a  moi-al  renovation  of  the  inward 
frame,  and  this  may,  according  to  the  Divine  pleasure, 
take  place  either  before  baptism,  or  in  baptism  or  after 
baptism." 

The  obligation  of  this  great  moral  revolution  in  the 
soul  rests,  he  says,  "upon  the  apostasy  of  man  occa- 
sioned by  the  fall;"  "it  is  founded  upon  an  eternal 
moral  necessity,  which  has  subsisted  ever  since  man's 
heart  became  alienated  from  God  and  true  holiness." 
"  This  change,"  he  adds,  "  is  in  Scripture  called  '  regen- 
eration,''conversion  of  the  heart,'  'renovation,'  'new 
creation,'  '  resurrection  from  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life 
of  righteousness,'  'circumcision  of  the  heart,'  "  &c. 

With  these  explanations  before  his  mind,  let  the  reader 


88  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


recall  the  shocking  assertions  of  the  Liturgy  as  quoted 
above — that  the  person  baptized  is  thus  made  "  a  mem- 
ber of  Christ,"  "  a  child  of  God,"  "  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,"  put  "  in  a  state  of  salvation"  and  at  death 
is  received  with  the  song  of  triumph,  "  Blessed  are  the 
dead  who  die  in  the  Lord,"  &c.    Is  not  this  monstrous  ? 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  in  England  and 
America  there  are  not  a  few  High  Church  Episcopa- 
lians who  go  the  full  length  of  the  opus  operatum  doc- 
trine of  Popery  in  regard  to  baptismal  regeneration. 
Hence,  when  some  years  ago,  Bishop  Meade  wrote  in 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  at  baptism, 
"  The  Churchman  "  demanded  "  how  a  Christian  bishop 
dared  openly  to  impugn  the  church's  teaching  on  bap- 
tism ? "  "  One  or  the  other  of  us  must  be  wrong." 
Well  did  Dr.  Aydelott,  while  an  Episcopal  presbyter, 
declare  that  "  there  were  two  entirely  different  gospels 
and  kinds  of  religion  in  the  church  " — "  a  vast  moral 
desert,"  &c. 

The  notion  that  regeneration  as  taught  by  Christ  and 
his  apostles  is  "  a  mere  external  change  of  the  relative 
state,"  appears  to  be  adopted  by  Bishop  Hobart  in  order 
to  evade  the  monstrous  conclusions  legitimately  drawn 
from  the  Liturgy.  "  There  is  a  distinction,"  he  says, 
made  in  the  language  of  the  Episcopal  Church  as  well 
as  in  Scripture  between  regeneration  and  renovation." 
"  Unless,"  he  adds,  "  the  baptized  person  is  renewed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  his  baptismal  regeneration  will  only  in- 
crease his  guilt."*  This,  however  does  not  much  mend 
the  matter.  Where  has  the  Scripture  said  that  a  per- 
son may  be  "  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  but  not 
"  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?"  Did  the  Psalmist  so 
teach  ■?  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  and  renew  a  right 
spirit  within  me."  Both  clauses  of  this  Hebrew  paral- 
lelism mean  the  same  thing.  This  "  new  creation"  and 
"  the  renewal  "  are  substantially  the  same.  "  Eenova- 
tion  *  *  *  ig  obviously  used  in  Scripture,"  says 
Faber,  "  to  express  that  progressive  sanctification  or 
*  Apology  for  Apostolic  Order,  p.  230. 


Bishop  Hobart"s  Evasions.  89 


growth  in  grace,  the  gradual  healthy  developmeut  of 
the  germ  of  spiritual  life."  "  But,  save  with  this  ex- 
planatory adjunct,  renovation  and  regeneration  are  iden- 
tical." "  Strictly  and  properly,"  he  adds,  "conversion  of 
the  lieart  is  the  very  same  as  moral  regeneration,  as  was 
taught  by  Augustine." 

Bishop  H.  says  he  teaches  baptismal  regeneration  in 
this  sense,  "  that  the  baptized  person  is  born  again,  not  in 
the  affections  of  his  soul,  but  into  a  neio  state,  &c."  But 
can  any  one  be  so  regenerated  or  "  born  of  God  "  as  to 
"love  the  brethren,"  "overcome  the  world,"  "know 
God,"  &c.,  without  any  change  in  his  affections?  And 
when  the  minister  prays,  just  before  baptism,  "  Give  thy 
Holy  Spirit  to  these  persons  that  they  may  be  born 
again  and  made  heirs  of  salvation" — does  it  all  indicate 
a  mere  "change  of  state,"  but  no  "  change  of  the  affec- 
tions ?" 

Again,  when  a  person  of  twelve  or  sixteen  years  of 
age  is  preparing  to  be  confirmed,  he  is  taught  the  Cate- 
chism, which  says  of  baptism,  "  wherein  I  was  made  a 
member  of  Christ — the  child  of  God."  "  I  thank  our 
heavenly  Father  that  he  hath  called  me  to  this  state 
of  salvation."  "  Adults,  when  baptized,  are  to  "  give 
thanks  that  they  are  made  heirs  of  everlasting  salva- 
tion." They  are  admonished  that  "  having  put  on 
Christ,"  "being  made  the  children  of  God,"  they  are 
bound  "  to  die  from  sin,  and  rise  again  to  righteousness, 
continually  mortifying  all  evil  and  corrupt  affections." 
And  in  the  preceding  prayer  these  adults  are  represent- 
ed as  "  truly  repenting  and  coming  to  Christ  by  faith." 
These  forms  surely  look  beyond  a  mere  change  of  rela- 
tive state,  and  concern  "  the  affections  of  the  soul." 
Either  Bishop  H.  or  the  liturgy  is  in  the  wrong — rather 
his  attempt  to  explain  away  the  language  of  the  liturgy 
is  a  miserable  failure. 

Bishop  Hobart  further  explains  that  "  the  baptized 
person  is  born  again  into  a  new  state,  in  which  he  re- 
ceives conditionally  a  title  to  the  blessings  of  the  gospel 
covenant."  But  this  is  simply  to  contradict  the  liturgy, 
not  to  explain  it.  It  declares  positively,  without  any 
conditions,  that  the  baptized  child  is  "  regenerated  by 
9 


90  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


the  Holy  Spirit  and  received  as  God's  own  child  by 
adoption,  and  incorporated  or  grafted  into  God's  holy 
church."  "And  for  these  blessings  the  minister  is  re- 
quired to  give  thanks  to  God."  Where  are  the  bishop's 
"  conditions"  in  all  this  ?  He  and  the  liturgy  are  in 
direct  opposition  to  each  other.  He  says  "  a  conditional 
title  to  gospel  blessings"  is  received  in  baptism.  The 
liturgy  teaches  that  the  blessings  themselves  are  received 
without  any  conditions. 

It  was  in  view  of  such  conclusions  as  these  that  Rev. 
Dr.  Aydelott,  while  still  an  Episcopal  presbyter,  felt 
constrained  to  say,  "  No  part  of  the  Prayer  Book  is  so 
open  to  objection  as  this  ;  none  has  so  grieved  the  hearts 
of  good  men  from  the  very  first  as  this  baptismal  office."* 

As  the  question  of  regeneration,  viewed  as  insepa- 
rable from  baptism,  is  of  infinite  practical  importance, 
let  us  examine  the  doctrine,  taught  by  another  High 
Church  ecclesiastic.  Dr.  Hook's  "  Church  Dictionary," 
revised  and  republished  in  this  country,  is  a  sort  of 
cyclopsedia  of  prelacy,  and  is  good  authority  on  such 
topics.  If  words  have  any  meaning,  Dr.  Hook  takes 
very  diflferent  ground  from  Bishop  Hobart's  view,  i.  e., 
that  regeneration  is  a  mere  change  of  state  and  does  not 
touch  the  afiections  or  dispositions  of  the  soul. 

(1.)  Under  the  article  "conversion,"  Dr.  Hook  says: 
"  That  the  sins,  original  and  actual,  of  the  faithful  re- 
cipient of  baptism  (of  course  an  adult)  are  washed  away, 
the  church  doth  teach,"  of  course  not  without  baptism. 
Again,  of  infants,  he  says :  "  In  the  opinion  of  our 
Reformers,  regeneration  and  remission  of  sins  did  ac- 
company baptism."  Of  all  this  he  approves  cordially. 
Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  "the  baptized"  as  "  therefore  in 
fact  regenerate." 

(2.)  Dr.  Hook  teaches  that  regeneration  is  so  con- 
nected with  baptism  that  "it  (regeneration)  cannot  be 
repeated — because  this  would  require  the  repetition  of 
baptism,  which  were  an  act  of  sacrilege."  This  is  cer- 
tainly making  "  the  washing  away  of  all  sin"  or  "  the 
remission  of  sin  "  to  depend  absolutely  upon  the  rite  of 
*  Conditions  and  Prospects  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 


Case  of  Baptisjial  Sacrii.ege. 


91 


baptism.  There  are  none  of  Dr.  Hobart's  "  conditions  " 
here ! 

(3.)  Yet,  in  contradiction  of  all  this,  under  the  arti- 
cle "regeneration"  Dr.  Hook  quotes  with  strong  appro- 
val, Mr, Simeon,  of  Cambridge,  as  follows :  "  Does  God 
ahvays  accompany  the  sign  with  the  thing  signified  ?" 
Mr.  Simeon's  answer  is,  "  We  cannot  know  or  even 
JUDGE  respecting  it  in  any  case  whatever,  except  by  the 
fruits  that  follow."  "  It  may  be  considered  only  a 
doubtful  point."  Which  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  our 
ignorance  is  so  great  that  separate  from  the  fruits  we  can 
form  no  judgment  on  the  question  !  But  this  is  precise- 
ly the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession,  viz.,  that 
a  person  may  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  bap- 
tism, and  that  some  infants  are  probably  thus  "  born 
again  " — but  beyond  this  "  ye  shall  know  them  by  their 
fruits."  Here,  then,  Drs.  Hook  and  Simeon  are  evi- 
dently at  swords  points.  Yet  strange  to  say.  Dr.  Hook 
says  of  the  extract  from  Simeon,  '"We  have  seldom  seen 
the  truth  more  briefly  vindicated !"  Which  is  the  same 
as  to  say  that  our  knowledge  is  so  limited  that  we  can- 
not even  judge  whether  "  the  thing  signified  "  always 
accompanies  "the sign"  or  not — and  "this  truth  is 
vindicated  "  by  Mr.  Simeon !  As  to  the  condition  of 
those  unfortunate  persons  who  have  been  baptized  but 
not  regenerated,  their  case  is  a  sad  one — for  to  regene- 
rate them  now  would  be  "  an  act  of  sacrilege,"  viz.,  "  a 
repetition  of  baptism !" 

4.  Dr.  Hook  is  still  more  explicit.  After  the  "  wash- 
ing away  of  the  sins,  original  and  actual,  of  the  faith- 
ful recipient  of  baptism,"  he  says  "  he  may  by  his  own 
fault  fall  again  into  sin,  in  which  if  he  die,  he  shall 
without  dovht  perish  everlastingly — his  condemnation  be- 
ing rather  increased  by  his  baptismal  privilege."  We 
suppose  of  course,  "all  his  sins,  original  and  actual," 
will  then  return  upon  his  soul  for  punishment. 

On  the  whole  it  is  obvious  that  this  doctrine  of  "  Bap- 
tismal Regeneration  "  is  one  of  those  inscrutable  mys- 
teries, like  "Apostolic  Succession,"  tactual  succession, 
which  none  but  High  Churchmen  can  fathom.  It  is  a 
'  washing  away  of  sin,  original  and  actual;"  but  not- 


92  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


withstanding  "  original  sin  "  so  remains  "  that  the  per- 
son will  always  by  his  own  fault  fall  again  into  sin,  his 
conscience  be  defiled,  &c."  It  is  "  baptismal  purity  ;" 
"  the  baptized  are  therefore  in  fact  regenerate,"  "  born 
of  God."  They  thus  become  "  the  children  of  God  " — 
but  they  may  to-morrow  become  the  children  of  the 
devil.  And  this  process  back  and  forth  may  go  on  for 
an  indefinite  number  of  times.  "  Kegeneration,"  again, 
"  cannot  be  repeated,  except  by  repeating  baptism  " — 
but  "  this  would  be  sacrilege."  "  Regeneration  and  re- 
mission of  sins  "  do  accompany  baptism ;  but  notwith- 
standing, in  no  case  of  baptism  can  we  know  whether 
the  subject  is  regenerate  or  not,  until  he  prove  it  by  the 
fruits  of  holiness.  Nay,  except  by  the  fruits,  we  cannot 
even  form  any  judgment  respecting  it !  "  The  Holy 
Spirit  gives  new  life  at  baptism,"  and  that  "  by  his  im- 
mediate agency  " — but  the  recipient  of  this  "  baptismal 
privilege  and  purity"  often  "falls  into  sin,  in  which  if 
he  die,  his  condemnation  is  not  avoided,  but  rather  in- 
creased." "Whether  "  all  the  sins,  original  and  actual," 
washed  away  in  the  baptism  of  an  adult,  are  again 
charged  upon  him  when  he  falls  from  grace  and  per- 
ishes, is  a  curious  question  not  cleared  up  by  High 
Churchmen. 

"  Baptismal  regeneration,"  therefore,  like  the  magi- 
cal influence  which  has  streamed  through  eighteen 
centuries  from  the  fingers  of  Popes  and  bishops  in 
ordination,  is  a  certain  vague,  undefined  and  undefinable 
quiddity,  to  which  it  is  difficult  to  give  "  a  local  habita- 
tion," or  even  an  intelligible  "  name."  We  fully  be- 
lieve that  true  believers  may  fall  for  a  time  into  griev- 
ous sins,  and  thus  incur  the  divine  displeasure;  but 
they  will  be  "  visited  with  stripes  "  and  brought  out  of 
that  state  before  death.  We  also  teach  that  if  left  to 
themselves,  even  those  who  are  "  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit "  would  fall  and  perish.  But  can  it  be  true 
that  those  who  have  been  made  "  the  children  of  God," 
"  heirs  of  salvation,"  received  "  the  remission  of  sins  " — 
whom  "  God  hath  accepted  in  the  Beloved  "  and  "  be- 
gotten to  a  lively  hope,"  and  who  are  "  purchased  with 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  Lamb  slain  " — that 


True  Doctrine  of  the  New  Birth.  93 


this  class  of  persons  "  do  often  fall  into  sin,"  "  their  con- 
science again  defiled,"  and  their  condemnation  rather 
increased  by  "  baptismal  purity  and  privilege !"  Every 
true  Christian  is  one  of  Christ's  "  sheep  who  hear  his 
voice  and  follow  him,"  He  says,  "  I  know  them." 
But  to  the  lost  he  will  say,  "  Depart,  ye  cursed,  I  never 
knew  you."  High  Churchmen  would  add  to  the  sen- 
tence of  some  of  them — "  except  that  I  regenerated  you 
in  holy  baptism !"  Genuine  believers  are  "  kept  by 
the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation."  "  I 
will  put  my  fear  in  their  hearts,  that  they  shall  not  de- 
part from  me."  "  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall 
live  forever."  "  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost " — 
"  BECAUSE  He  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them  " 
— "  and  him  the  Father  heareth  always."  He  prays, 
that  "  they  may  be  with  me  where  I  am."  "  Holy 
Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name,  those  whom  thou 
hast  given  me."  These  are  but  specimens  of  the  texts 
which  prove  that  whom  God  regenerates,  he  justifies  and 
glorifies.  Well  may  Paul  exclaim,  "  Who  shall  separate 
us  from  the  love  of  God  ?" 

Dr.  Hook  utterly  repudiates  the  Calviuistic  doctrine 
of  the  new  birth,  "as  the  first  influx  of  irresistible  and 
indefectible  grace,  that  cannot  be  repelled  by  its  subject, 
and  which  must  issue  in  salvation."  "  Of  such  grace," 
he  says,  "  our  church  knows  nothing."  But  it  is  very 
obvious  that  by  using  such  terms  as  "  irresistible,"  "  in- 
defectible," "  cannot,"  "  must,"  he  intended  to  make  our 
doctrine  look  as  odious  as  possible.  It  will  appear, 
however,  that  he  does  not  understand  the  subject.  We 
will  try  to  make  it  plain.  We  teach  that  when  \t  pleases 
God,  according  to  his  purpose  and  grace,  to  perform  for 
any  soul  the  work  which  Dr.  H.  calls  "  conversion  " — 
i.  e.,  "  a  change  of  heart  and  life  from  sin  to  holiness" — 
HE  CAN  DO  IT.  "  He  Can  work  in  that  soul  both  to  will 
and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."  This  is  "  irresistible  " 
grace.  We  concede  that  the  corrupt  nature  often  does 
greatly  resist  and  grieve  the  Spirit  of  God  by  endeavors 
to  drive  away  convictions  of  sin,  &c.  But  if,  as  in  the 
case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  it  is  the  good  pleasure  of  God  to 
translate  him  from  darkness  to  light,  he  is  able  to  over- 


94  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


come,  by  his  Spirit  and  grace,  all  resistance.  Dr.  Hook, 
and  High  Churchmen  generally,  we  suppose,  take  the 
opi)osite  view,  i.  e.,  that  God  tries,  but  cannot  convert 
some  souls — he  is  often  frustrated  and  defeated  in  his 
efforts  at  conversion !  Now  if  this  be  true,  what  infinite 
folly  to  pray  God  to  do  what,  in  very  many  cases,  he 
cannot  do !  Better  pray  to  the  sinner  to  consent  to  be 
converted — then  all  would  be  easy.  Thus  much  for 
"  irresistible  grace." 

As  to  "  indefectible  grace  " — we  believe  that  when  the 
most  wise  and  mei-ciful  God,  by  his  Spirit,  has  thus  at 
the  infinite  expense  of  the  death  of  his  Son,  made  per- 
sons "  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  they  have 
become  of  the  number  of  his  "sheep" — it  also  follows, 
as  Christ  himself  declares,  "  they  shall  never  perish,  nei- 
ther  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand."  But  our 
limits  will  not  allow  us  to  pursue  this  topic  farther. 

The  passage  of  Holy  Writ  which  seems  most  to  favor 
the  High  'Church  doctrine  of  "  baptismal  regenera- 
tion," is  Titus  3:5.  "  According  to  his  mercy  he  saved 
us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  "  The  washing  of  regeneration  "  is  inter- 
preted to  mean  regeneration  by  baptism.  Dr.  Scott,  an 
Episcopalian,  comments  thus:  "  The  washing  of  regen- 
eration is  that  new  birth  of  the  Spirit  of  which  '  the  laver ' 
of  baptism  was  the  sacramental  sign,  but  nothing  more." 
Admitting,  for  argument,  an  allusion  to  baptism,  the 
two  forms  of  phraseology  seem  plainly  to  mean  the  same 
thing,  i.  e.,  the  new  birth  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the 
text  no  more  proves  a  spiritual  birth  to  be  inseparable 
from  baptism,  than  Psalm  51 :  7  proves  a  spiritual  birth 
to  be  inseparable  from  "  the  sprinkling  with  hyssop." 
David  says,  "Purge  me  with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be 
clean  ;  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow  :"  a 
Hebrew  parallelism,  both  clauses  having  the  same 
meaning,  though  the  hyssop  refers  to  a  ceremonial  act. 
So  "  the  washing  of  regeneration  "  and  "  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  clearly  indicate  the  same  great 
change,  only  expressed  in  diflTerent  terms.  The  idea  of 
an  inseparable  connection  between  baptism  and  "the 
new  birth"  is  not  so  much  as  hinted  at.    For  Paul, 


The  English  Burial  Service.  95 


doubtless,  had  not  forgotten  such  cases  as  that  of  the 
baptized  Simon  Magus,  whom  Peter  pronounced  to  be 
"  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bonds  of  iniquity" — who 
"had  neither  part  nor  lot  in  the  matter,"  "his  heart 
Ijeing  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God." 

And  now,  what  Christian  heart  but  must  shudder  in 
contemplating  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hook  and  other  English 
clergymen,  repeating  "  the  Burial  Service "  over  an 
adult  whose  "  sins  original  and  actual  had  been  washed 
away  in  baptism,"  but  who  "  has  fallen  into  sin,"  and 
die?  in  secret  vice,  "  his  condemnation,"  as  he  admits, 
"  being  increased  by  his  baptismal  privilege."  Dr.  H. 
quotes  the  rubi-ic  of  the  Prayer  Book  thus :  "  The  office 
is  not  to  be  used  for  any  that  die  unbaptized,  or  excom- 
municated, or  have  laid  violent  hands  upon  them- 
selves." "  All  other  persons,"  he  adds,  ''  that  die  in  the 
communion  of  the  visible  church,  are  capable  of  these 
rites  of  Christian  burial."  So  in  the  case  of  the  wicked 
person  supposed  :  the  doctor  takes  his  "  Prayer  Book  " 
and  says :  "  It  hath  pleased  Almighty  God,  of  his  great 
mercy,  to  take  unto  himself  the  soul  of  our  dear  departed 
brother."  *  *  *  "  We  commit  his  body  to  the  ground  171 
sure  and  certain  hope  of  eternal  life,  &c."  "  We  give 
thee  hearty  thanks  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  deliver 
this  our  brother  out  of  the  miseries  of  this  sinful  world." 
And  in  the  Collect,  he  prays,  "That  we  may  rest  in 
Him  (i.  e.,  Christ,)  as  our  hope  is,  this  our  brother  doth." 
If  this  is  not  to  teach  "  a  strong  delusion,"  what  would 
be? 

The  American  editor  of  the  "  Church  Dictionary  " 
says :  "  Our  Reviewers  struck  out  the  words  in  the  Eng- 
lish Service  just  after  '  we  commit  his  body  to  the 
ground,'  viz.,  '  in  sure  and  certain  hope  of  the  resurrec- 
tion to  eternal  life.' "  He  adds :  "  This  clause  was  a 
great  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  conscientious  cler- 
gymen of  the  Church  of  England."  "A  great  stum- 
bling-block." That  is  a  very  mild  expression !  It  is 
the  precise  gospel  of  the  Old  Serpent — "  Ye  shall  not 
surely  die."  In  thousands  of  cases  it  teaches  to  "  be- 
lieve a  lie !"  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  this 
horrible  profaneness  was  too  strong  for  the  digestion  of 


96  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


the  "  American  Keviewers  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer."  But  they  have  left  enough  to  startle,  if  not 
disgust,  most  "  conscientious  clergymen,"  as  was  before 
demonstrated. 

These  are  curious  illustrations  of  Dr.  "Van  Deusen's 
"  best  method  "  of  promoting  "  morality  and  religion  I" 
As  to  the  other  sacrament,  the  Lord's  Supper,  Episco- 
pal usages  are  not  much  better.  Dr.  Aydelott,  who  was 
an  Episcopal  priest  at  one  time,  says  that  he  himself 
was  admitted  to  the  communion  by  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished Episcopal  ministers,  without  the  slightest 
examination  as  to  his  views  of  the  gospel,  or  his  experi- 
ence of  its  power.  "  He  might,"  he  adds,  "  have  been  not 
only  spiritually  dead,  but  *  *  *  even  an  infidel,  for 
aught  his  pastor  knew."  "  Thus  so  many  unconverted 
men,  thoughtless,  self-deceived  ones,  and  others  still 
worse,  have  found  their  way  into  the  Episcopal  church- 
es." And  thus  the  most  sacred  ordinances  are  greatly 
profaned. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts  and  arguments,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  so  early  as  1689,  under  the  reign  of 
"William  and  Mary,  an  effort  was  made  to  revise  the 
English  Prayer  Book.  Such  men  as  Bishops  Burnet, 
Stillingfleet  and  Tillotson  were  the  movers — but  it 
failed  ;  though  the  book  was  the  one  sanctioned  in  the 
reign  of  the  notoriously  profligate  Charles  H,  under 
whom  two  thousand  of  the  best  of  the  clergy  were  ex- 
cluded from  their  livings,  and  "  of  every  five  churches 
in  England,  one  was  vacant  " — as  Archdeacon  Den- 
nison  testifies. 

In  1785,  the  first  General  Convention  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  this  country,  under  the  lead  of  the  excel- 
lent Bishop  "White,  undertook  a  revision,  so  far  as  to 
adapt  the  Prayer  Book  to  their  evangelical  views. 
"  They  expunged,"  as  Bishop  Cummins  states  the  facts, 
"  from  the  English  Prayer  Book  those  Articles  which 
contained  the  words  'baptismal  regeneration,'  'priest,' 
and  '  declaration  of  absolution,'  instead  of  which  were 
substituted  the  words  '  declaration  concerning  the  for- 
giveness of  sin ;'  also,  expunging  the  words  in  the  Apos- 
tles' Creed,  '  He  descendeth  into  hell,'  for  which  words 


Reformed  Episcopal  Church.  97 


there  is  no  authority  in  the  word  of  God,  and  which 
were  never  used  during  the  first  four  hundred  or  five 
hundred  years  of  the  existence  of  the  church.  The 
prayer  in  behalf  of  all  bishops,  priests  and  deacons, 
meaning  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  was  changed  so  as  to 
embrace  '  all  bishops  and  other  pastors.'  The  Prayer 
Book  was  unanimously  recommended  by  the  Conven- 
tion to  all  Episcopal  ministers,  and  was  used  by  them 
for  four  years,  having  been  first  read  by  Bishop  White 
in  old  Christ  church,  in  Third  street,  Philadelphia." 

This  revised  edition,  commonly  called  "The  Bishop 
White  Prayer  Book,"  was  condemned  by  the  Conven- 
tion of  1789,  through  the  influence  of  Bishop  Seabury. 
The  same  Convention  inserted  a  recognition  of  the  doc- 
trine of  oblation  (or  sacrifice)  in  the  service  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Bishop  White  did  not  believe  in  the 
divine  right  of  apostolic  succession  ;  he  only  recognized 
the  Episcopal  system  as  an  ancient  and  desirable  form 
of  church  polity.  This  was  of  course  very  wrong,  in 
the  judgment  of  High  Churchism. 

The  struggle  which  has  long  agitated  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  has  at  length  issued  in  the  organi- 
zation of  "  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church."  In  a  re- 
cent discourse,  Bishop  Cummins,  who  was  the  first  to 
secede,  has  stated  the  basis  of  this  movement.  After 
informing  his  audience  "  how  sorely  he  had  often  been 
tried  when  discharging  his  duties  as  a  bishop  by  having 
to  join  in  ceremonies  of  which  he  did  not  approve,  and 
say  things  with  which  he  could  have  no  sympathy,"  he 
went  on  thus  :  "  The  Reformed  Church  adopts  the  Bish- 
op White  Prayer  Book,  and  it  aims  not  to  destroy  but 
to  conserve  the  old  faith  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  and  firmly  holds  to  that  authority  of  religion 
which  recognizes  a  fellowship  between  all  ministers  of 
God's  gospel,  no  matter  of  what  denomination.  It  ex- 
cises from  its  liturgy  the  very  name  of  priest,  and  dis- 
countenances the  erection  of  altars  in  churches,  as  even 
more  abhorrent  than  the  genuflexions  and  ceremonies 
before  that  altar."  The  bishop  expressed  a  firm  faith 
in  his  work,  and  said  that  unless  it  was  of  God,  it  would 
surely  come  to  naught. 


98  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


The  friends  of  this  movement  allege  that  "  all  hope 
of  reforming  the  Episcopal  Church  while  they  remained 
within  her  pale,  was  utterly  hopeless."  In  this  they  are 
undoubtedly  right.  It  may  be  proper  to  add,  however, 
that  the  argument  in  this  and  the  previous  chapter  was 
completed  many  months  before  the  origin  of  "  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church."  We  rejoice  to  have  such  a 
confirmation  of  the  logic  we  have  employed. 

Nor  is  it  the  least  of  the  objectionable  features  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  that  in  the  ordination  of  presbyters,  mis- 
called priests,  it  copies  so  closely  the  very  terms  of  the 
Romish  mass  book  "What  an  utter  disregard  of  New 
Testament  phraseology  in  the  expression,  a  Protestant 
priest!  "The  order  of  priesthood!"  "The  form  of 
ordering  priests  !"  These  terms  are  quite  natural  and 
consistent  in  the  Popish  church,  where,  in  the  mass,  the 
priest  pretends  to  ofier  a  sacrifice,  literally  to  oflTer  the 
body  of  Christ  upon  the  altar  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
But  in  a  Protestant  church  it  is  simply  nonsense  or 
something  worse.  No  truth  more  plainly  appears  in  the 
New  Testament  than  this,  viz.,  that  our  blessed  Lord  is 
the  only,  ever-living  and  all-sufiicient  Priest  of  his 
church,  and  that  she  needs  no  other.  His  sacrifice  once 
offered,  once  for  all,  forever  excludes  all  others  by  men 
or  angels.  This  doctrine  is  largely  demonstrated  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  opposite  doctrine  is 
both  anti-scriptural  and  impious ;  because  it  exalts  man 
into  the  place  of  the  Divine  Saviour,  "who  bore  our  sins 
in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,"  and  is  our  intercessor  in 
heaven.  Where  have  Christ  and  his  apostles  called  the 
ministers  of  the  word  priests  or  given  them  "  a  sacerdo- 
tal function  ?"    This  should  suffice. 

Agreeably  to  this  gross  departure  from  New  Testa- 
ment usage,  these  priests  are  endowed  with  the  power  to 
practise  a  kind  of  Popish  "confessional."  Thus,  in 
their  ordination,  the  bishop  uses  this  language:  "Re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  priest 
in  the  church  of  God,  now  committed  to  thee  by  the 
imposition  of  our  hands.  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive, 
they  are  forgiven ;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain,  they  are 
retained."    (There  is  here  an  alternate  form  allowed, 


High  Church  Altars  and  Confessional.  99 


but  a  majority  of  the  bishops  use  the  form  here  given.) 
So  also,  in  the  stated  services  of  the  church,  there  is  a 
"declaration  of  absolution  or  remission  of  sins,  to  be 
made  by  the  priest  alone,  standing :  the  people  kneeling." 

But  if  there  be  a  priest,  it  is  quite  natural  that  he 
should  have  an  altar.  And  here  it  is.  When  the  bishop 
is  about  to  form  a  pastoral  relation  between  one  of  the 
priests  and  a  congregation,  the  terms  "  altar,"  "  sacerdo- 
tal relation,"  "  sacerdotal  connection,"  are  freely  used, 
and  the  new  pastor  is  made  to  say  the  following  prayer : 
"  Thou  hast  honored  thy  servant  with  appointing  him 
to  stand  in  thy  house  and  to  serve  at  thy  altar,  &c." 
We  have  not  the  Romish  mass-book  at  hand,  but  there 
can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that  this  was  the  original,  from 
which  the  Prayer  Book  is  a  pretty  close  copy.  Protest- 
ant Christianity  repudiates  all  such  conformity  to  Jew- 
ish rites — all  such  apeing  of  Popisli  mummery. 

Let  any  person  of  sense  apply  such  forms  to  the 
original  institution  of "  the  Lord's  supper,"  a  phrase 
which  the  Prayer  Book  has  not  expunged.  Read  the 
record,  Matt.  26 :  20-28.  "  Jesus  sat  down  with  the 
twelve,"  viz.,  to  eat  the  passover,  "  and  as  they  were 
eating,  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  and  brake  it,"  &c. 
Where  was  the  altar  in  this  case  ?  Did  our  great  High- 
Priest  offer  any  sacrifice,  bloody  or  unbloody,  in  the 
institution  ?  Did  he  take  himself,  the  only  victim,  into 
his  own  hands,  and  offer  himself  by  handing  his  whole 
body  round  to  be  eaten  by  each  of  the  twelve  ?  So 
when  the  inspired  Paul  uses  the  phraseology,  "  eat  the 
Lord's  supper,"  1  Cor.  11 :  20,  can  any  person  of  com- 
mon sense  imagine  he  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  a 
sacrifice,  a  priest,  an  altar  and  a  victim  ?  He  knew  too 
well  the  precise  language  of  the  adorable  Saviour, 
"  This  do  ye  in  remembrance  of  me,"  "  to  show  forth 
the  Lord's  death  till  he  come." 

But  it  is  proper  to  inquire,  whether  Episcopal  minis- 
ters and  people  have  exhibited  any  great  tendency  to 
forsake  the  true  Protestant  doctrine  in  regard  to  the 
functions  of  the  clergy  and  adopt  the  corrupt  interpre- 
tation of  the  Roman  apostasy  ?  In  reply  we  quote  the 
words  of  Rev.  Mr.  Latane,  formerly  Episcopal  Rector 


100  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


of  a  church  in  "Wheeling,  now  of  the  "  Reformed  Epis- 
copal Church,"  "  that  many  (of  the  Episcopal  priests) 
have  come  to  look  upon  themselves,  and  their  people  to 
regard  them,  as  really  priests,  their  office  as  a  priestly 
office,  and  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  sacrifice,  the  Lord's 
body  and  blood  being  in  some  form  offered  in  that  sac- 
rifice." "Can  -we  wonder,"  he  adds,  "that  the  doc- 
trine and  practice  of  priestly  confession  and  absolution 
should  claim  a  rightful  place  in  the  (Episcopal)  Church." 

The  same  able  writer,  who,  impelled  by  a  sense  of 
duty,  "has  withdrawn  from  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
ministry,"  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  Johns,  announcing  the 
fact,  makes  the  following  startling  statements  :  In  1869, 
alarmed  by  certain  corrupt  innovations  in  doctrine  and 
usage,  nine  bishops  met  in  New  York  to  confer  together 
as  to  what  was  to  be  done  to  avert  the  impending  dan- 
ger. They  simply  asked  for  some  changes  in  the  liturgy, 
or  an  insertion  of  some  alternate  phrases,  where  the 
most  objectionable  anti-protestant  language  was  em- 
ployed. What  was  the  result?  "Their  propositions 
were  fairly  scouted,"  and  Bishop  Potter,  of  New  York, 
issued  a  pastoral  letter,  predicting  the  certain  "judg- 
ment of  the  General  Convention,"  "  that  the  movement 
will  end  in  a  mortifying  discomfiture,"  and  that  "  very 
nearly  the  whole  church  will  stand  amazed  that  any 
respectable  body  of  churchmen,  not  to  say  bishops, 
could  have  been  found  to  give  their  countenance  to  such 
propositions,"  and  that  "  it  is  indeed  astonishing  that 
they  did  not  see  that  the  thing  to  which  they  were  urged 
to  give  their  countenance  was  an  absolute  impossibility." 

Bishop  Potter  was  a  true  witness  in  this  matter  of  the 
nine  bishops.  And  so  confident  was  he  that  his  High 
Church  brethren  were  of  the  same  mind  with  himself, 
that,  to  use  Mr,  Latane's  language,  "  he  boldly  threatens 
them,  that  whenever  such  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book 
shall  take  place,  then,  if  two-thirds  of  the  bishops  and 
three-fourths  of  the  dioceses  may  be  expected  to  act 
according  to  their  principles,"  it  would  result  in  such 
changes  (and  he  distinctly  specifies  them,)  as  would 
make  the  Prayer  Book  teach  unmistakably  the  doctrine 
of  the  presence  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood,  "  verily 
and  indeed,"  in  the  Lord's  supper." 


The  Clay  and  the  Potter.  lUl 

The  Bishop  of  New  York  felt  that  he  was  master  of 
the  situation,  and  in  the  spirit  of  Pope  Pius  seems 
to  regard  the  Episcopal  Church  as  so  much  "  clay  in  the 
hands  of  the  potter."  The  chief  alteration  desired  by 
the  "  nine  bishops,"  according  to  Mr.  Latane,  was  this  : 
"that  any  minister  who  desired  it,  might  be  allowed  to 
omit  from  the  service  that  single  clause  which  makes 
him  seem  to  declare  of  every  infant,  after  he  has  bap- 
tized it,  that  the  child  is  now  regenerated  with  God's 
Holy  Spirit."  Well,  this  seems  reasonable  enough  to 
those  of  us  who  are  mere  lookers  on.  But  not  so  my 
Lord  Bishop.  He  tells  these  Low  Church  men  to 
BEWARE,  lest  they  arouse  into  action  "the  principles  of 
two-thirds  of  the  bishops."  And,  then,  what  would  en- 
sue? Why  such  a  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book  as  would 
make  it  teach  "  unminlakably  the  doctrine  of  priestly 
absolution  "  and  the  actual  bodily  presence  of  our  Lord 
in  the  Eucharist ;  of  course  his  whole  body  being  pre- 
sent in  a  thousand  different  churches  and  countries  and 
in  hea;ven  too,  at  the  same  moment !  This  jjrelate 
seemed  to  think  that  "  two-thirds  of  the  bishops  and 
three-fourths  of  the  dioceses"  would  work  wonders,  if 
once  provoked !  Li  view  of  such  developments  us 
these,  every  oue  can  judge  for  himself  whether  "the 
Prayer  Book  "  be  not  a  fertile  soil  for  the  germination 
of  many  of  the  worst  superstitious  of  ajjostate  Rome. 
What  became  of  the  petition  of  the  "  nine  bishops," 
when  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  General  Convention, 
may  be  told  hereafter. 


10 


102 


Hifiii  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  PRELATICAL  SCHEME  OF  CHURCH 

GOVERNMEXT  DR.    TAN    DEUSEN's   THREE  MODES — 

VIEWS  OF  THE  ENGLLSH  REFORMERS  ANI>  CERTAIN 
MODERN  DIGNITARIES. 

From  the  doctrinal  discussion  we  now  turn  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  ministry  and  mode  of  church  govern- 
ment according  to  the  Prelatical  scheme.  "Christ," 
says  the  Rector,  "  prescribed  one  mode  for  the  salvation  of 
men  (i.  e.,  the  Episcopal  Church),  *  *  *  *  the  true 
and  divine  way."  "Men,"  he  adds,  "are  the  advocates 
of  a  variety  of  systems,  *  *  *  human  schemes." 
Amid  "all  these  iiuiltiplied  forms,"  he  informs  us, 
"there  are  three  disiimt  systems,  viz.,  the  Romish,  the 
Denominational,  and  the  Episcopal  or  church  system."* 
But  to  this  classification,  we  as  non-Episcopalians  do 
most  seriously  object,  for  several  reasons. 

First.  It  IB  altogether  at  fault  in  regard  to  strid  logical 
prei-ixinn..  Why  does  "the  Rector"  separate  "the  Romish" 
fri>ni  "the  KpiFcopal  system,"  while  at  the  same 
time  confoiindiuu- ill  heterogeneous  mass  Preshyterianism 
with  the  lowest  forms  of  lievesy  and  fanaticism?  "Wliat 
an  outrage  upon  all  rules  ')f  logical  order,  to  say  nothing 
of  Christian  courtesy  and  comuuin  decency,  to  throw  to- 
gether and  assail  e/i  ina'^^e  af  one  "  system"  (viz.,  ''de- 
nominationalism"\  tlie  tlecent,  orderly  teachings  and 
worship  of  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Dutch  Reformed  and 
others,  in  common  with  the  fanaticism  of  Shakerism  and 
the  licentiousness  of  Universalism  ?  Suppose  we  should 
denounce  and  hold  up  topublic  abhorrence  his  "  church 
system,"  which  all  know  to  be  Prelacy,  viz.,  by  charging 
*  Cb.  in  Eep.,  p.  106. 


High  C'htjECH  OJrrRAfeE. 


upon  the  Episcopal  Chui-ch  all  the  monstrous  idolatries, 
ludicrous  legends,  hateful  impieties  and  moral  corrup- 
tions of  the  Romish  Church  !  Episcopacy  and  Popery- 
are  both  prelatical  systems — and  there  would  be  no 
greater  injustice,  to  say  tiie  least,  in  holding  the  "  Rec- 
tor's church  system"  responsible  for  all  the  abominations 
of  "  the  man  of  sin,"  than  to  class  Presbyterians  with 
the  lowest  grades  of  heretics  and  fanatics!  And  so 
when  one  of  his  authorities  speaks  of  all  denominations 
but  his  own  (and  perhaps  Popery)  as  "  the  apostate 
sects" — when  in  denouncing  Sectarism,  he  asks,  "  did 
you  ever  hear  a  Mormon  sermon" — and  when  he  in- 
cludes what  he  calls  "  the  Deistic  Campbellite,"  "  the 
Latter  Day  Saints,"  "  the  Come  Outers,"*  &c.,  in  the  same 
apostate  category,  as  specimens  of  the  "denominational 
system" — we  presume  Dr.  Van  Deusen  sees  in  all  this  greai 
accuracy  of  discrimination  and  rigid  analysis !  But  to 
his  perception,  to  class  such  prelatical  schemes  as  Popery 
and  High  Churchism  together,  would  be  confounding 
things  totally  distinct ! !  We  do  not  wish  to  be  con- 
sidered as  uttering  any  complaint  of  such  treatment. 
The  "  Rector"  and  his  aids  are  thus  doing  essential  ser- 
vice to  the  cause  of  truth.  They  are  directing  upon 
themselves  the  argurnentum  ad  absurdum.  Again,  "  the 
Rector"  hiimelf  furnishes  another  conclusive  objection  to 
his  threefold  arrangement  nf  "  systems."  He  acknowledges 
that  those  wlio  adopt  "  promiuent  peculiarities  of  the 
denominational  systems,"  "  have  done  most  valuable 
service!"  How  so?  He  answers:  ''In  maintaining 
many  great  and  fundamental  principles,  we  acknowledge 
their  influence  and  power — in  opposing  the  overflowings 
of  ungodliness— in  zeal,  labors,  and  sacrifices,  they  have 
furnished  bright  examples  to  their  fellow  Christians  of 
all  names. "f  Not  so  bad  for  "  the  apostate  sects !" 
Much  more  of  the  same  description  appears  in  the  same 
volume  as  quoted  in  part  in  our  introductoiy  chapter. 
But  will  Dr.  Van  D.  pretend  that  it  is  a  fair,  candid 
classification  of  sects,  by  which  he  gives  part  of  this 
l)raise  to  Mormonism,  Shakerism,  Universalism,  <fec.? 
Tlius  High  Churchism  stands  scif-convictod. 

■  (liM-viuan  Lookintr,  Ac,  p.  211,  2l:i,  Ac. 


104 


High  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


Finally.  If  "  the  Kector  of  St.  Peter's"  had  desired 
to  classify  the  various  forms  of  religious  belief  and  prac- 
tical influence,  so  as  to  do  justice  to  all  parties,  and  thus 
fairly  "  investigate  the  best  mode  for  extending  and  per- 
petuating Christianity  in  this  or  any  other  nation,"* 
we  suggest  that  he  should  liave  adopted  something  like 
the  following  order  of  arrangement : 

I.  The  Prelatieal  or  Episcopal  scheme — including 
with  his  own  sect  the  Romish  hierarchy  with  its  infallible 
Pope  and  other  impious  claims.  He  may  call  this  "  the 
church  system"  if  he  sees  fit.  "  A  rose  by  any  other 
name  would  smell  as  sweet." 

II.  The  popular  or  Presbyterian  system,  embracing 
Presbyterians  of  different  shades  and  all  other  evangeli- 
cal denominations  whicli,  rejecting  Episcopacy,  maintain 
the  parity  of  the  clergy  and  the  right  of  presbyters  to 
ordain  other  ministers  and  give  large  power  to  the  lay 
element  in  the  government  of  the  church,  and  especially 
in  their  several  deliberative  assemblies  or  courts  of 
reference  and  appeal . 

nr.  The  heretical  and  fanatical  system — including 
Sociuians,  Unitarians  of  all  grades,  Universalists, 
Quakers,  Shakers,  Swedenborgians,  &c.  If  Dr.  Van 
D.  thinks  proper,  he  can  add  the  Mormons. 

This  classification,  we  suggest,  is  exhaustive,  truly  im- 
partial and  just;  and  the  thorough  discussion  of  its 
several  parts  would  have  led  to  results  at  once  fair,  in- 
structive and  edifying.  If  the  Rector  will  consent  to 
deliver  a  course  of  "seven  sermons  in  St.  Peter's  Church," 
taking  up  the  subject  in  detail  as  thus  presented,  then, 
as  Cowper  said  on  another  occasion,  "-May  I  be  there  to 
see." 

In  the  meantime  turn  we  now  to  "  the  one  mode 
which  Christ  has  appoiuted  for  the  salvation  of  men," 
"  the  true  and  divine  way."t  Eet  us  examine  the  diffi- 
culties of  Prelacy  in  regard  to  the  three  orders  of 

THE  MINISTRY. 

It  will  be  proi>er  to  ascertain  in  the  first  place,  what 
are  the  precise  views  of  High  Churchism  on  this  topic. 
Christianily  in  Eepnb.,  p.  91.       +  Tbid. 


DOCTP.INK  OF  ThUKE  OliDERS. 


105 


111  the  preface  to  the  several  forms  of  ordiuation  iu  the 
Prayer  Book,  we  read:  "  It  is  cvidcut  *  *  that  from 
the  Apostles'  time  there  have  beeu  three  orders  of  minis- 
ters iu  Ciirist's  ehurcii,  l)ishops,  priests  aud  dca(.'0us." 
And  iu  the  ordination  of  those  several  grades  of  the 
cK  rLiv,  AIniiLibfy  God  is  rlnve  limes  addressed  as  haviug 
"  a;i|Miiit>'d  ///r/ /-x  iii'  ministers  in  his  ehureh" — 

1  III- drjcons  "  hy  his  proxideiiee,"  aud  the  priests  aud 
'■-hops  "  by  his  Holy  Spirit."    The  bishop  ordaius  the 
acou  once,  aud  then  he  has  authority  to  preach  aud 
iiaptize — he  ordaius  the  same  deaeou  again,  aud  then  he 
is  a  /jriesi,  with  authority  (from  "  the  Holy  Spirit")  to 
preach  and  administer  both  sacraments  :  iu  counection 
with  other  bishops,  he  ordaius  the  same  priest  a  third 
time,  aud  now  he  too  is  a  bishop  complete,  preaches, 
ailiniuisters  the  sacraments,  ordaius  deacous  and  priests, 
who  with  their  congregations  are  required  "reverently  to 
obey  "  him,  &c.,  &c.    Snch  is  the  Episcopal  hierarchy  of 
I  his  country.    It  is  hidd  by  all  classes  of  Protestant 
'Episcopalians,  but  with  various  shades  of  iuteusity, — 
!  ■  deepest  and  darkest  dye  being  that  of  High  Church- 
-m.    Presbyterians  and  other  churches,  ou  the  coutrary, 
maintain  that  this  notion  of  "  divers  orders"  of  minis- 
ters is  uuscriptural,  a  mere  human  invention.    We  hold 
rhat  there  is  but  oue  order  aud  office  of  the  ministry  ap- 
liuted  by  Christ,  aud  we  think  the  Prelatical  theory 
[tended  with  insuperable  objections. 
1.  The  definition  of  "  the  visible  church  of  Christ," 
HI  the  19th  Article,  is  "  a  congregation  of  faithful  men, 
in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached  and  the 
sacraments  duly  administered  according  to  Christ's  or- 
dinance in  all  tliose  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite 
to  the  same."    Hence  arises  the  inquiry.   Can  there 
be  any  such  "  visible  cougregatiou  or  company  of  be- 
lievers," with  "  the  pr^aahiug  of  the  pure  word  aud  the 
sacraments  duly  administered,"  which  does  not  recog- 
nise "  the  three   orders   of    ministers  ?"    The  High 
Churchman  answers  in  the  negative.    Thus,  Dr.  Van 
Deuiea:  "How  shall  we  gain  tlie  divine  reconciliation, 
peace  of  mind,    *    *    triumpli  iu  death  and  bliss  in 
eternity,  if  we  refuse  to  enter  the  commuuion  aud  fel- 


High  Chitkch  Episcopacy. 


lowship  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  ?"  "  These,"  he  adds, 
"  are  essential  divine  relations,  and  each  must  labor  to 
keep  them  pure,  *  *  *  *  or  gain  no  final  admis- 
sion to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first 
born,  which  are  written  in  heaven."  This  Episcopal 
organization,  he  affirms,  is  Christ's  "  one  body,"  "  the 
one  mode  prescribed  for  the  salvation  of  men."* 

In  the  same  strain  speaks  Bishop  Hobart:  "Where 
the  gospel  is  preached,  communion  \vith  the  church  by 
the  participation  of  its  ordinances  at  the  hands  of  the 
duly  authorized  priesthood  (the  three  "orders,")  is  the 
indvipensable  condition  of  salvation."  And  Bishop  Doane 
says  of  the  Pilgrim  fathers,  "They  went  from  here 
(England)  *  *  *  without  a  c/;urcA,  without  a  litur- 
gy, with  no  transmitted  authority  from  God  to  minister 
in  holy  things."  "  I  entreat  all,"  he  adds,  "not  to  be  con- 
tent *  *  without  that  ministry  and  those  sacraments 
which  are  equally  his  ordinance  and  equally  essential 

TO  SALVATION." 

Such  is  High  Church  Episcopacy!  We  cheerfully 
acknowledge,  however,  that  there  is  a  large,  respectable, 
laborious,  and  useful  body  of  the  clergy  of  the  Episco- 
pal denomination,  who  can  adopt  the  language  of  Bishop 
McUvaine  of  Ohio.  "  Should  he  (  the  bishop)  offer  hfs 
Christian  brethren  of  other  churches  (he  does  not  say 
scct^f)  no  better  consolation  than  '  uncovenanted  mercy, 
he  would  t*hink  their  souls  utterly  without  hope."  "  H. 
knows  of  no  such  mercies."  "  With  all  his  heart  h^ 
can  carry  to  them  as  beloved  brethren  in  Christ,  the  over- 
flowing cup  of  blessing,  &c.,  &c."f  But  Bishop  Mcll 
vaine  and  all  who  sympathized  witli  him,  were  regarded 
by  some  High  Churchmen  with  supreme  contempt. 
Theirs  is  "  a  high  low  and  low  high  church  Episcopacy," 
the  only  thing  preventing  our  fraternization  with  the  sects," 
"  a  batch  of  Puritans,"  "  combining  with  the  dissenter, 
the  profane,  the  lawless  and  the  infidel,"  "apologizing 

Chri<!tianity  in  the  Kepub..  pp.  25,  92.  He  elsewhere  abun- 
dantly insist.s  that  the  Episcopal  body  is  ''the  church,"  and  all 
others  are  "  denominations"  or  sects.  Of  course  Christ  appouited 
no  .s-ec/.?  outside  of  tlie  churcli  ! 

t  See  his  answer  to  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk. 


Hi(in  C'liiTRcii  Warxs  Low  C'iiurcii,  107 


for  schism,"  "joining  hands  with  parties  just  hanging 
over  the  frightful  precipice !"  And  they  are  addressed  in 
the  followiug  style :  "  If  you  (Bishop  McI.  and  others) 
succeed,  ii'the  church  shall  be  Puritanized,  *  *  *  * 
your  league  with  the  sects  is  complete."  *  *  *  * 
"  Brethren,  let  go  their  hands  *  *  or  you  must  let 
go  ours."  "  Our  church  stands  with  open  arms  to  re- 
ceive the  tens  of  thousands  that,  except  for  her,  would 
have  no  other  home  to  flee  unto  from  the  apostate  sects, 
but  to  the  bosom  of  Rome."*  This  is  the  style  in  which 
the  children  of  Episcopal  Sabbath  schools  are  taught  to 
think  and  speak  of  Low  Church  ministers — such  men  as 
Bishops  Johns,  Meade,  Mcllvaine  and  others  of  different 
denominations,  among  the  most  eminent  and  usei'ul  of 
the  ambassadors  of  Christ. 

2.  It  is  not  the  least  strange  feature  of  these  extrav- 
agant pretensions  (viz.,  that  there  can  be  neither  actual 
church  nor  valid  ordinances  without  Episcopacy),  that 
many  of  the  leading  bishops  and  other  clergy  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  of  this  country  utterly  repudi- 
ate such  arrogant  folly.  Thus  Pearson,  Dean  of  Salis- 
bury, says :  "  The  absolute  necessity  of  the  apostolic 
succession  of  Episcopacy  to  the  existence  of  a  Christian 
church  and  to  the  validity  and  efficacy  of  the  Christian 
sacraments,  *  *  though  consistent  with  the  system  of 
Romanism,  I  venture  to  affirm,  without  the  fear  of  suc- 
cessful contradiction,  has  never  been  assximed  by  the 
Church  of  England,"  "  While  lamenting  as  an  im- 
perfection and  defect  the  want  of  the  Episcopal  order  in 
some  of  the  Reformed  churches  upon  the  continent,  she 
does  not  excommunicate,  nor  on  that  account,  refuse  to 
acknowledge  them."| 

In  like  manner,  Musgrave,  Bishop  of  Hereford,  disa- 
vows "the  necessity  of  a  belief  in,  and  the  certainty  of 
the  apostolical  succession  in  tlie  bishops  and  presbyters, 
as  the  only  security  for  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  ;  so 

*  "  Prepb.  Clergj-man  T>ookitig  for  the  Charch,"  with  copyright 
by  "the  General  Prot.  Episcop,  Sunday  School  Union." 

t  See  his  charge,  in  Bricknell's  Judgnaent,  &e.  Van  Deusen, 
Mines  and  others  seem  to  have  far  outatiipped  sueh  ministers  as 
Dean  Pearson,  Bishop  Musgrave  and  otliers. 


108 


High  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


that  those  who  do  not  receive  them  from  meu  so  ac- 
credited and  appointed  to  minister  *  *  *  *  * 
therefore  injieriloj  their  salcation  CLud  left  to  the  uncov- 
enantcd  mercies  of  God,  which  may  be  to  them  no  mer- 
cies at  all."  "  To  spread  this  notion,"  the  bishop  sav.-, 
"would  he  to  make  ourselves  the  dekision  of  Tin: 
WORLD."  "Our  Reforiucrs,"  he  adds,  "  dLstiaguisli  1). 
tweeu  what  is  essential  to  the  being  and  what  is  essential 
to  the  well-being  of  a  church — a  wise  distinction,  which 
good  sense  and  Christian  charity  should  lead  us  all  ever 
to  keep  in  sight."*  In  illustration  of  these  sentiments, 
how  refreshing  the  letters  of  Edward  VI,  Cranmer, 
Jewel,  Hooper,  and  others  of  the  noble  company  who 
founded  the  English  Establishment.  In  addressing  such 
persons  as  Calvin,  Bucer,  EuUiuger  and  the  non-Epis- 
copal churches  of  the  continent,  do  they  denounce  them 
as  "  schismatics,"  "apostate  sects,"  &c.  &c.?  No  !  They 
are  their  "  very  dear  brethren,"  "  much  esteemed  fathers 
in  Christ,"  "learned  and  godly  men,"  "most  illustrious 
meu,  to  whom  we  are  much  indebted  for  your  piety," 
&c.  And  even  the  great  Queen  (Elizabeth)  writing  to 
the  Cantons  of  Switzerland,  speaks  of  "the  more  pure 
religion  which  they  (the  Cantons)  profess,"  and  "as 
professing  the  same  religion."!  And  to  crown  the  whole, 
the  present  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  speaks  of  "  the 
respectable  ministers  of  the  orthodox  congregations  of 
Dissenters"  (apostate  sects!),  and  he  says  that  "these 
terms  belong  to  many  pious  and  good  men  '."X  So  the 
Bishop  of  Chester  says,  "  Perhaps  it  is  too  much  to  expect 
*****  that  THE  CHURCH  OF  Christ  should 
^er  be  a  seamless  coat ;"  that  all  "  the  congregations  of 
faithful  meu  *  *  *  should  think  alike  and  agree 
unanimously  upon  such  subjects  as  diocesan  Episcopacy, 
infant  baptism,  liturgical  forms  or  a  national  establish- 
ment." 

To  put  the  meaning  of  these  statements  beyond  the 

■•'See  Ills  charge,  in  "Bricknell's  Judgment  of  the  Bishops,"  p. 
320. 

t  Tliesc  letters  are  publishc  1  iu  England  by  the  Parker  Socie- 
ty, from  the  original  manuscripts. 
X  Charge,  1840. 


Views  of  Exgltsii  Btsiiops.  109 


possibility  of  cavil  or  doubt,  the  Bishop  of  Chester  adds : 
"The  comfort  and  peace  ot  the  Christian  worhl  would 

l>c  (greatly  increased,  if  it  were  coiniiionly  undcivtood 
tliat  the  u))Hi/  irliich  the  Scrij/tiin  s  ,1,  ni'iinl  wci-c  tlic  unity 
of  tliose  who  hold  alike  Me  r/yv,,/  ,lo,lrii, rs  ui'  (  hristian 
truth,  Init  consent  to  (Hjf'cr  on  matters  concerning  which 
Scripture  does  not  carry  determinate  conviction  to  every 
honest  mind."* 

Sucli  were  undoubtedly  the  large  and  liberal  views  of 
all  tlie  Icadinu-  Reformers  of  the  16th  century,  as  they 
are  now  of  s(jrae  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  P]nglish 
dignitaries.  The  notion  that  "  ir'dhovt  a  bisJtop  tli/'re  can- 
iKit  c.risf  lun/ church,  *  *  *  =^  vo,  W't  so  much  as  in 
inline," f  was  the  afterthought  of  "the  school  of  Laud," 
of  which  tlie  distinguished  liistoriau,  Hallam,  writes  as 
follows:  "  A  characteristic  tenet  of  tins  party  was  that 
J-^/iiscopnl  ffoverniucnt  Is  uuVixpcnsuhhj  requisite  to  a  Chris- 
tian church.  Hence  they  treated  the  Presbyterians  with 
insolence  abroad  and  severity  at  home."|  Among  "the 
petty  superstitions  introduced  or  countenanced  by  Lnud," 
ilnllam  enumerates  pictures,  communion  altars,  cruci- 
h.-vcs,  gaudy  dresses  of  priests,  the  real  presence,  invocation 
of  saints,  prayers  for  the  dead,  auricular  confession,  &c., 
kv.  It  was  fitting  that  the  exclusive  High  Church 
dogmas  siiould  originate  in  the  English  establishment 
under  an  unmitigated  tyrant  (Charles  I )  as  "the  head 
of  the  church,"  and  with  an  archbishoj)  and  primate  of 
"  riiirrow  uiiilcrMandiiif/,  and  who,  of  all  the  prelates, 
d (parted  firlhcst  from  the  principles  of  reformation  and 
had  drawn  nearest  to  Rome."§  Even  Bishop  Short,  as 
we  have  seen,  has  no  apology  for  such  a  creature  as 
J/iud,  of  whom  it  is  well  known  that  he  was  a  close  ob- 
server and  diligent  student  of  his  own  dreams  and  other 
supi^osed  o»(cu.*.  The  I'oundcrs  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
of  the  previous  century,  were  dead.  A  Papist  at  heart, 
Laud  was  of  coui-se  tlie  antipodes  of  such  men  as  Cran- 

*  See  his  charge,  1841. 

t  The  Oxford  Tract  party  add — "nor  any  Christian  man,  no, 
not  so  much  as  in  name."    Briti-^h  Critic,  April,  1842. 
J  Constitutional  Hist,  of  England,  vol.  1,  chap.  8. 
'i  Macaiilay,  Tlist.  of  Eng.,  chapter  1. 


no 


High  Cnx-iicH  t-piscoPAcr- 


mer,  Ridley,  Jewel,  and  their  noble  associates.  "  They 
had  retained  Episcopacy,"  says  Macaulay,  "  but  they 
did  not  declare  it  to  be  essential  to  the  welfare  of  a  Chris- 
tian society  or  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments.  Cran- 
mer,  indeed,  on  one  important  occasion,  plainly  avowed," 
says  Macaulay,  "  liis  coTiviction  that  in  the  primitive 
time  there  wa.s-  no  disti nctiuti  h'  tn  een  bishops  and  priest?." 
"Archbisho])  Grindal  loiiu  hesitated,"  adds  the  eloquent 
historian,  "  about  accei)ting  the  Episcopal  office,  from 
dislike  of  what  he  regarded  as  tiie  munimei-y  of  consecra- 
tion. Bishop  Parkhurst  uttered  a  fervent  prayer  that 
the  Church  of  England  would  propose  to  herself  the 
(non- Episcopal)  Church  of  Zurich,  (  "apostate  sect  T'^a- 
the  absolute  pattern  of  a  Christian  community.  Bisho]) 
Ponet  was  of  opinion  that  the  word  bishop  should  be 
abandoned  to  Papists,  and  that  the  chief  officers  of 
the  purified  church  should  be  called  superintendents.'"* 
Thus  history  adds  her  testimony,  that  High  Churchism 
is  a  bald  innovation  upon  the  original  constitution  of 
the  Church  of  England. 

"There  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those  days" — and 
we  may  readily  conceive  the  wondei-ment  which  Cran- 
mer.  Hooper,  Griu'lal  and  their  associates  would  have 
felt,  had  some  aspiring  stripling  attempted  to  enlighten 
their  ignorance  in  the  following  style:  Gentlemen,  you 
are  sadly  deficient  in  the  knowledge  both  of  Scripture 
and  antiquity,  especially  of  the  divine  right  of  Episco- 
pacy as  established  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  Permit 
nic  to  inform  yuu,  "the  Christian  would  reposed  for 
at  least  f//;-c.  n ii/irok'-n  centuries  of  primitive  piety,  mira- 
cle and  martyrdom,  under  the  undisputed  watch  and 
rule  of  the  Episcopacy."!  Of  course  it  originated  with 
the  Redeemer  and  his  immediate  successors  !  "  Did  you, 
gentlemen,"  exclaims  another  zealous  High  Church- 

*  Macaulay's  Hist,  of  Eng.,  chap.  1.  As  a  matter  of  fact  and 
of  history,  it  is  notorious  las  Bishop  Burnet  has  recorded,)  that 
tlie  nineteenth  article  of  the  Church  of  England  was  expressly 
inserted  in  order  to  embrace  and  recognize  non-Episcopal  and 
Episcopal  ciiurches,  and  among  tliese  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Scotland. 

t  Clergyman  Looking,  &c  ,  p.  341. 


A  Bishop  in  evkky  Town.  Ill 


man,*  "did  ?/oit  say  that  the  (non-Episcopal)  Church  of 
Zurich  was  the  absolute  tattern  of  a  Christian  com- 
munity ?"  What  a  piece  of  inexcusable  rashness !  "  In- 
quire for  the  Church  of  the  Apostles" — "  that  which 
Christ  himself  instituted  and  prescribed" — "  and  which 
was  generally  faithfully  adhered  to  for  the  first  three 
centuries  of  the  Christian  era."  "How  could  you  afBrni," 
adds  a  half  fledged  convert  to  High  Churchism,  that 
"in  primitive  times  there  was  no  distinction  between 
bishops  and  priests  f"  What  inexcusable  ignorance ! 
"  Episcopacy  existed  wherever  the  church  existed."  "In 
that  age  of  truth  and  danger,  there  was  in  every  city  and 
island  and  town,  one  and  one  only  who  was  known  as 
the  chief  pastor  or  bishop  of  the  place. "f 

Just  at  this  point  Archbishop  Cranmer  happens  to 
recall  to  mind  the  text,  Philip.  1  :  1 — "  Paul  and  Timo- 
theus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints 
which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  BTSiiors  and  deacons." 
Also  Paul's  direction  to  Titus — "  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that 
thou  shouldest  *  *  *  ordain  elders  (Greek,  'pres- 
byters') in  every  city"—"  for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless, 
&c."  Titus  1:5,7.  "  These  presbyters,"  argues  Cran- 
mer, "  were  obviously  in  Apostolic  phrase,  real  bishops. 
But  were  they  diocesan  or  prelatical  bishops  ?"  Are 
the  bishops  of  the  States  of  Pennsylvania,  of  New  York 
and  of  Virginia  such  'bishops  as  these?'  Did  every 
city,  island  and  toicn"  form  a  separate  diocese  for  such 
a  bishop  as  these  modern  prelates  ?  Surely  the  dioceses 
must  liave  been  very  contracted  in  the  Apostolic  day  ! 

But  we  have  extended  this  historical  view  of  the  sul)- 
ject  as  far  as  our  limits  permit.  The  difficulties  which 
beset  the  High  Church  theory  are  fully  expressed  by 
the  prince  of  historians,  Neander.  "  I  can  discover,"  he 
says,  "  no  other  difference  between  the  terms  presbideroi 
and  episcopoi  in  the  Apostolic  age,  than  that  the  first 
signifies  rank,  the  second  the  duties  of  the  office.  This 
name  of  presbyter,"  he  adds,  "  by  which  this  office  was 
first  distinguished,  was  transierred  from  the  Jewish 
synagogue  to  the  Christian  church."|    From  this  it 

*  Mr.  Van  Deusen's  "  Cliristianity  in  the  Kepublic,"  j.p.  104,  91. 

t  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,  p.  341. 

t  Planting  of  Christianity,  vol.  1,  p.  167. 


112 


High  Chukch  Eiu.scui'acy. 


appears  the  title  of  dignity  was  presbyter,  the  name  of 
labor  and  toil  was  bishop.  We  open  the  Scriptures  to 
verify  these  statements,  which  are  diametrically  opposed 
to  the  Episcopal  scheme.  But  will  some  High  Church- 
man resolve  us  this  question,  viz..  If  every  city  and  town 
in  Pennsylvania  were  favored  with  a  prelatical  bishop  of 
the  modern  sort,  how  many  would  the  State  require? 

The  Diocese  of  Pittsburgh,  for  example,  contaiusover 
tifty  parishes  or  churches,  of  which  only  ten  have  more 
than  one  hundred  communicants  and  twenty-four  less 
than  fifty — one  of  them,  that  of  the  town  of  Indiana, 
reports  only  nine  !  These  parishes  are  almost  without 
exception  located  in  the  cities  and  towns,  and  of  course 
they  would  require  about  fifty  bishops,  provided  they 
wei'e  of  the  sort  which  belonged  to  "  the  first  three  cen- 
turies !"  A  bishop  of  nine,  or  as  in  two  other  parishes, 
a  bishop  of  fourteen  communicants,  would  be  a  modern 
curiosity.  But  we  propose  to  examine  with  some  care 
the  extent  of  primitive  dioceses  in  a  future  chapter.  As 
to  the  state  of  matters  m  the  two  other  dioceses  of  Penn- 
sylvania, our  State  being  favored  with  only  three  diocesan 
bishops,  the  Church  Almanac  for  1874  furnishes  similar 
facts,  as  it  is  our  authority  for  "  the  Diocese  of  Pitts- 
burgh." 


Teaching  of  the  New  Testament.  113 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  THEORY  OF  THREE  ORDERS   OF  MINISTERS — THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT  SAYS,  "  IT  IS  NOT  IN  ME." 

In  obedience  to  the  couusel  of  the  "  Rector,"  we  now 
proceed  "to  inquire  for  the  church  of  the  Apostles." 
Did  our  blessed  Lord  direct  the  apostles  to  establish  in 
the  church  "three  orders  of  ministers?"  Did  they  clear- 
ly teach  that,  exce^jt  in  "fellowship"  with  these  "divers 
orders,"  there  is  "  no  communion  with  Christ,"  "  no  divine 
reconciliation,"  "  no  triumph  in  death,"  "  no  bliss  in 
eternity,"  for  the  plain  reason  that  "  these  are  essential 
divine  relations?"*  If  it  be  so,  they  surely  have  not 
left  us  in  the  dark  on  the  subject. 

I.  Our  first  objection  arises  from  a  comparison  of  this 
topic,  as  it  is  said  to  be  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  with 
other  acknowledged  "essentials"  of  genuine  piety. 
Faith  is  universally  acknowledged  to  be  one  of  these 
essentials.  But  mark  how  plain  and  oft-repeated  is  its 
necessity,  as  taught  by  inspired  men.f  Repentance  and 
regeneration  are  essential  to  Christian  character;  and 
again  how  obvious  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles !  Holiness  is  one  of  those  requisites  "  without  which 
no  man  shall  see  the  Lord."  Is  there  room  for  any 
honest  mind  to  frame  a  doubt  on  the  subject?  Now,  if 
the  inspired  apostles,  to  say  nothing  of  their  Master, 
"  (who  may  be  regarded  as  only  preparing  the  way  for 
the  foundation  of  the  true  church  organization),  if  the 
apostles,  like  modern  High  Churchmen,  had  considered 

*  Christianity  in  the  Eepub.,  pp.  25,  26. 

t  The  term  failh  is  used  between  two  and  three  hundred  times 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  in  a  majority  of  these  instances  it  proba- 
bly means  the  saving  grace  of  faith.  A  similar  statement  is  true 
of  repentance. 

11 


114  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


"  the  three  orders  "  as  essential  to  the  very  existence  of 
the  church,  or  even  to  its  jjerfection,  that  doctrine  would 
no  doubt  have  held  a  similar  prominence  in  the  New 
Testament.  Would  a  God  of  infinite  goodness  and 
wisdom  have  left  in  great  obscurity  that  which  he  knew 
to  be  essential  to  all  the  privileges  and  hopes  of  perishing 
men  ? 

To  give  additional  force  to  this  reasoning,  we  have 
only  to  call  to  mind  that  it  is  not  only  the  ignorant  and 
superficial  who  find  great  embarrassment  in  searching 
the  Scriptures  for  High  Church  doctrine,  but  as  was 
shown  in  our  last  chapter,  the  founders,  and  decided 
friends  of  the  English  hierarchy,  men  eminent  for 
learning  and  piety,  and  even  profound  historians  who 
have  spent  a  long  life  in  the  study  of  the  subject.  On 
the  other  essentials  of  salvation  there  is  great  harmony. 
"  Thus,"  says  the  Bishop  of  Llandafi",  in  one  of  his  charges, 
"they  (non-Episcopalians)  interpret  the  Scriptures  in 
the  main,  nearly  in  the  same  maimer  with  ourselves, 
bidding  their  hearers  look  ta  the  same  means  of  salvation," 
&c.;  "  they  have  much  more  in  common  with  us — I  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  it — than  of  diflerence  from  us."* 
All  is  plain  to  non-Episcopalians,  it  seems,  until  they 
begin  to  inquire  for  "the  three  orders:"  then  darkness 
shrouds  their  minds  !  It  was  some  such  strange  predica- 
ment as  this  that  drove  the  Oxford  Tractarians  to  say : 
"The  gosjyel  viessage  is  but  indirectly  and  covertly  re- 
corded in  Scripture  under  the  surface  !"\  If  these  high- 
est of  all  High  Churchmen  held  this  to  be  true  of  "the 
gospel  message,"  much  more  must  it  be  true  of  the 
theory  of  prelacy !  But  says  the  Bishop  of  London, 
"  Our  single  ultimate  reference  is  to  the  m-itten  word  of 
God,  which  we  believe  to  contain  all  truths,  a  knowledge 
whereof  is  necessai-y  to  salvation,  and  so  to  contain  them 
that  by  the  diligent  use  of  the  ordinary  means  and  with 

*  See  Bricknell,  p,  336. 

t  Tract  85,  p.  27.  Article  17  of  the  Prayer  Book,  however, 
gays,  "  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salva- 
tion ;  so  that  whatsoever  *  *  may  not  be  proved  thereby,  is 
not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an 
article  of  faith,  or  thought  necessary  to  salvation." 


Episcopal  Concessions. 


115 


jirayer  for  God's  eulighteaing  grace,  they  (all  necessary 
truths)  may  be  certainly  discovered  therein."  Can  this 
be  truly  said  of  High  Church  prelacy  ?  "  This  absolute 
completeness  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  continues  the 
bishop,  "  as  the  source  and  proof  of  our  faith,  I  hold  to 
be  a  vital  doctrine  of  our  Reformed  church."*  But  were 
not  Cranmer  and  his  associates  men  of  prayer?  Did 
they  not  seek  "God's  enlightening  grace?"  Have  not 
hundreds  of  Low  Churchmen,  profound  historians, 
learned  divines,  both  in  and  out  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, since  their  day,  been  capable  of  rightly  "using  the 
ordinary  means  ?"  Yet  they  assure  us  they  discover  no 
such  truth  as  High  Churchmen  affirm  to  be  "  essential 
and  necessary  to  salvation,"  and  without  which  there  can 
be  "  no  church,  no  valid  ordinances,  no  covenanted  hope 
of  mercy,"  "  no  triumph  in  death,  no  bliss  in  eternity." 

II.  "  Inquire  for  the  church  of  the  Apostles,"  says 
Dr.  Van  Deusen.  Agreed.  But  here  we  are  met  by 
the  assurances  of  some  of  your  most  learned  authors, 
that  in  looking  for  prelacy  in  the  writings  of  those  in- 
spired men,  our  labor  is  necessarily  in  vain !  "  The 
learned  High  Churchman  Dodwell,  and  those  who  agree 
with  him,  concede  that  prelacy  (or  '  the  three  orders ') 
is  not  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  because  it  did  not 
exist  until  after  the  commencement  of  the  second  cen- 
tury."-\  But  if  this  be  true,  then  it  is  not  of  divine 
origin  and  authority,  but  a  human  invention.  Let  it 
not  be  said  that  manifest  traces  of  the  existence  of 
"  three  orders  of  ministers  "  appear  very  soon  after  the 
close  of  the  sacred  canon.  Admit  it  for  argument  sake  ; 
but  in  1  Cor.,  11th  chapter,  we  find  Paul  severely  re- 
buking the  church  of  Corinth  for  converting  the  Lord's 
supper  into  a  profane  debauch,  "one  is  hungry  and 
another  is  drunken."  And  we  have  historical  proof 
that  other  corruptions  quite  as  unlikely  to  exist,  quite  as 
certain  to  arouse  resistance,  did  very  early  gain  preva- 
lence, certainly  before  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
and  why  not  distinct  traces  of  this  prelatical  figment  of 
clerical  ambition?   Under  the  very  eyes  of  the  apostles 

*  Charge,  1842. 

t  Bib.  Eepertory,  No.  1,  1830. 


116  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


themselves,  there  were  those  who  "  loved  to  have  the 
pre-eminence,  as  Diotrophes!"  High  Churchmen  agree 
with  us  that  before  the  death  of  Paul,  "  the  man  of  sin 
and  the  mystery  of  iniquity  did  already  work."  In  its 
milder  forms  it  developed  itself  in  prelacy,  its  perfect 
stature  was  popery.  That  true  piety  had  sadly  declined 
and  the  "love  of  many  waxed  cold,"  very  soon  after  the 
decease  of  the  last  apostle,  is  admitted  by  Milner,  the 
Episcopal  historian :  "  A  gloomy  cloud,"  he  tells  us, 
"hung  over  the  conclusion  of  the  first  century!"  and  when 
he  reaches  the  termination  of  the  second,  his  language  is 
far  more  emphatic :  "  A  dark  shade  is  enveloping  these 
divme  glories.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  grieved  already  by 
the  ambitious  intrusions  of  self-righteousness,  argumenta- 
tive refinements  and  pharisaical  pride."*  Here  was  the 
fruitful  soil  from  which  sprung  a  crop  of  deadly  cor- 
ruptions, shooting  up  fast  into  prelacy  and  ripening  at 
length  into  papal  supremacy  with  all  its  dark  abomina- 
tions. "  Inquire  for  the  church  of  the  Apostles  ;"  but 
Archbishop  Whately  says,  as  the  result  of  his  inquiries, 
"  Successors  of  the  apostles'  office  the  apostles  have  none," 
"  but  ******  their  successors  are  the  law- 
fully ordained  ministers,  the  regular  and  recognized 
o-overnors  of  a  regular  subsisting  Christian  church." 
And  the  judicious  Hooker  adds:  "There  may  some- 
times be  very  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  allow  ordina- 
tion made  without  a  bishop."  Archbishop  Cranmer 
also  says :  "  The  bishops  and  priests  were  at  gpe  time 
and  were  no  two  things,  but  both  one  office  in  the  begin- 
ning of  Christ's  religion."  These  learned  dignitaries 
"  inquired  for  the  church  of  the  Apostles,"  and  such  were 
the  results. 

III.  These  considerations  prepare  the  way  for  a  closer 
inspection  of  the  sacred  Record.  Is  it  within  the  limits 
of  probability  that  any  unprejudiced  person,  especially 
one  who  had  never  heard  of  the  prelatical  controversy, 
would  gather  from  the  New  Testament  such  a  scheme  as 
that  of  "the  three  orders?"  The  Milners,  historians 
high  in  repute  in  the  Church  of  England,  one  of  them 

*  Ch.  Hist.,  vol.  1,  pp.  85,  137. 


Usher's  Reduced  Episcopacy.  117 


"  President  of  Queen's  College,  Cambridge,"  refer  to 
those  remarkable  and  oft-quoted  texts,  Philip.  1 :  1  and 
Acts  20:  17,  28— "Paul  and  Timotheus  *  *  to  the 
saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the 
bishops  and  deacons."  "And  from  Miletus  he  (Paul) 
sent  to  Ephesus  and  called  the  elders  (Greek,  presby- 
ters) of  the  church.  *  *  *  Take  heed  unto  your- 
selves and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
hath  made  you  overseers  "  (Greek,  episkopous,  i.  e.  bish- 
ops), "to  feed  the  church  of  God."  Here  then  were 
"  the  bishops  of  the  city  of  Philippi,"  several  of  them ; 
and  "the  presbyters  (or  elders)  of  Ephesus,"  whom 
Paul  calls  "  bishops  "  over  that  church.  In  commenting 
on  these  passages,  Milner  says :  "  In  vain,  I  think,  will 
almost  any  church  set  up  a  claim  to  exact  resemblance." 
Then  after  commending  "Usher's  model  of  reduced 
Episcopacy  as  coming  nearest  to  the  primitive  plan," 
( very  redvxied  it  must  have  been  to  have  several  bishops 
in  one  city!)  he  adds,  "At  first,  indeed,  or  for  some 
time,  church  governors  were  only  of  two  ranks,  presby- 
ters and  deacons  (no  '  three  orders '),  at  least  this  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  case  in  particular  instances,  as  at 
Philippi  and  Ephesus;  and  the  term  bishop  was  con- 
founded with  that  of  presbyter.  The  church  of  Corinth 
continued  long  in  this  state,"  &c.* 

These  are  important  concessions.  In  the  writings  of 
inspired  men  observe,  "  the  term  bishop  is  confounded 
with  that  of  presbyter,"  and  "there  were  only  two 
ranks  ('orders')  of  church  governors."  But  was  it 
not  most  extraordinary  that  inspired  apostles,  supposing 
them  to  have  adopted  the  High  Church  theory,  "  No 
bishop,  no  church,"  should  thus  confound  things  essen- 
tially distinct,  should  appoint  "  only  two  ranks "  (or 
"orders")  of  church  rulers?  The  historian  then  pro- 
ceeds to  state  that  not  till  "  towards  the  end  of  the  first 
century  did  all  the  churches  follow  the  model  of  the 
mother  church  of  Jerusalem,  where  the  Apostle  James 
was  the  first  bishop,"  i.  e.  pastor,  as  we  understand  it. 
"  A  settled  presidency  obtained,  &c.,  &c."    Again,  "  It 

*  Vol.  I,  p.  92. 


118         High  Church  Episcopacy. 


may  perhaps  be  true,"  says  Milner,  "that  a  reduced  Epis- 
copacy, in  which  the  dioceses  are  of  small  extent,  as 
those  in  the  primitive  churches  undoubtedly  were,  and  in 
which  the  president,  residing  in  the  metropolis,  exercises 
a  superintendency  over  ten  or  twelve  presbyters  of  the 
same  city  and  neighborhood,  would  bid  the  fairest  to 
promote  order,  peace  and  harmony."  And  when  Mil- 
ner comes  to  the  third  century,  he  says:  "Both  at 
Rome  and  Carthage,  the  reduced  mode  of  Episcopacy 
was  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  which  gradw- 
ally  prevailed  in  the  Christian  world."  "  The  settled 
president,"  he  adds,  "  obtained  the  name  angel  (or  mes- 
senger), though  that  of  bishop  soon  succeeded."  Thus 
we  have  from  the  pen  of  learned  Episcopal  dignitaries, 
a  description  of  primitive  Episcopacy  differing  in  few 
material  points  from  the  moderatorship  of  the  Presby- 
terian system,  except  that  its  incumbent  is  represented 
as  a  permanent  officer,  while  our  "  president "  or  moder- 
ator is  elected  at  stated  periods. 

In  the  second  century,  Milner  quotes  Ignatius,  who, 
he  says,  "  evidently  points  out  three  distinct  ranks  in  the 
primitive  chui'ch,  the  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons."* 
But  it  is  denied  that  these  were  "  three  orders  of  minis- 
ters." The  sophistry  lies  in  the  asswnption  that  prelat- 
ical  and  not  Presbyterian  bishops  were  intended.  The 
primitive  bishop  was  the  pastor  of  a  church.  "What 
though  some  of  these  bishops  are  early  spoken  of  as 
appointed  by  the  apostles  and  as  the  successors  of  the 
apostles  ?  Assuming  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterian  pari- 
ty, might  not  such  a  statement  be  just  as  true  of  such 
ministers  as  of  prelates  ?  What  though  one  man  only  is 
represented  as  presiding  at  a  time  in  Rome,  and  in  other 
large  and  populous  cities?  So  in  France  at  the  present 
time,  the  Protestant  churches,  though  Presbyterian, 
have  a  consistory  in  each  large  city  or  district,  embrac- 
ing a  number  of  pastors,  and,  in  some  cases,  many  thou- 
sand communicants — and  over  these  they  always  have 
one  of  the  senior  pastors  as  "  president,"  who  not  only 
occupies  the  chair  at  their  meetings,  but  is  also  the 

*  Vol.  1,  p.  92. 


Strange  Perversion  of  Scripture.  119 


prominent  organ  for  receiving  all  applications,  conven- 
ing all  assemblies  and  conducting  all  their  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  So  it  has  been,  in  substance,  ever  since  the 
Reformation.  But  they  have  never  had  prelatical 
bishops."*  Some  such  Episcopacy  as  this  Milner  evi- 
ilently  teaches  to  have  been  the  primitive  or  reduced 
form  recommended  by  Archbishop  Usher.  But  this  is  a 
very  different  affair  from  modern  diocesan  Episcopacy. 

IV.  In  the  light  of  these  facts,  what  shall  we  say  of 
the  obvious  perversion  of  Scripture  practised  by  Prela- 
tists,  in  their  form  for  ordaining  modern  bishops  ?  This 
is  a  serious  charge.  We  prove  it  as  follows  :  The  term 
bishop  (episcopos)  in  its  personal  form,  is  used  only  Jive 
times  in  the  New  Testament.  Two  of  these  passages 
( 1  Tim.  3 :  1  and  Acts  20 :  27,  28,)  are  quoted  by  the 
Prayer  Book,  in  "  the  Form  for  consecrating  a  Bishop." 
Thus,  "this  is  a  true  saying,  if  a  man  desire  the  office  of 
a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work,  &c."  This  is  read  as 
"the  collect,"  from  Scripture,  just  before  the  ordination 
of  a  modern  pi'elatical  bishop,  with  a  diocese  (it  may  be) 
such  as  the  whole  State  of  Pennsylvania!  IBut  this  is 
extremely  absurd,  to  say  the  least.  Bishop  Onderdonk 
tells  us,  "  the  name  bishop,  which  now  designates  the 
highest  grade  of  the  ministry,  is  not  appropriated  to  that 
office  in  Scripture.  The  name  is  there  given  to  the  middle 
order  of  presbyters;  and  all  that  we  read  in  the  New 
Tedavient  concerning  bishops  (including,  of  course,  the 
w  ords  overseers  and  oversight),  is  to  be  regarded  as  per- 
taining to  that  middle  grade." -\  Now  if  this  be  true, 
what  a  strange  perversion  of  the  word  of  God,  to 
quote  such  passages,  which  Bishop  O.  admits  to  pertain 
only  to  presbyters  or  elders,  at  the  ordination  of  a  prer 
latical  or  diocesan  bishop  P  How  would  it  be  more  ab- 
surd to  cite  at  the  ordination  of  bishops  those  texts 
*  Bib.  Kepertory  for  1830,  p.  54. 

t  See  his  tract,  "  Episcopacy  Tested  by  Scripture."  So  Peter. 
"  The  elders  (or  presbyters)  which  are  among  you  I  exhorts 
*  *  *  *  Feed  the  flock  of  God,  *  *  *  taking  the  over- 
sight (episkopountes)  acting  the  bishop  thereof."  2  Pet.  1 :  5. 
So  evident  is  it  that  bishop  and  elder  were  the  same  office  and 
possessed  the  same  powers  of  the  pastor,  viz.,  to  feed,  to  rule, 
guide,  protect,  &c  ,  the  flock  of  God. 


120  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


which  speak  of  the  appointment  of  deacons,  as  1  Tim. 
3:8,"  Likewise  must  the  deacons  be  grave."  But  if  we 
admit  that  modern  Prelatists  are  too  intelligent  to  be 
guilty  of  any  such  absurd  perversion  of  Scripture,  the 
only  alternative  is  to  suppose  that  these  texts  were 
the  best  they  could  find,  and  of  course,  by  their  own 
acknowledgment,  the  Scriptures  contain  no  statement 
of  the  qualifications  requisite  for  a  modern  diocesan 
bishop,  the  highest  and  most  important  office  in  the 
church  !  Ergo,  they  are  compelled  to  substitute  sound 
for  sense ! 

To  give  additional  point  to  this  reasoning,  we  would 
guard  against  the  impression  that  Bishop  Onderdonk 
stands  alone  in  this  view  of  the  subject.  "  That  presby- 
ters were  called  bishops,"  says  Dr.  Bowden,  "  I  readily 
grant,  *  *  also  that  this  proves  the  officer  who  was 
then  called  a  bishop  (and  consequently  the  office,')  was 
the  same  with  presbyter."  "  That  bishop  and  presbyter 
are  terms  of  the  same  meaning  in  the  New  Testament 
*  *  *  their  humble  measure  of  learning  does  not 
permit  Episcopalians  to  debate."*  Very  well,  and  yet 
in  ordaining  your  first  and  highest  order  of  bishops,  you 
take  your  "  lesson "  from  Paul's  exhortation  to  "  the 
elders  (or  presbyters)  of  the  church  at  Ephesus  "  (Acts 
20:17),  who  are  addressed  as  "  made  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
overseers  "  (episkopovs)  or  scriptural  bishops !  At  the 
same  time  you  concede,  without  hesitation,  that  this 
■'lesson"  refers  only  to  the  middle  grade,  i.  e.  presby- 
ters, and  has  nothing  to  do  with  such  bishops  as  you 
ordain !  With  the  same  propriety  you  might  take  your 
"  lesson "  from  the  qualifications  prescribed  for  any 
other  office,  and  from  almost  any  other  part  of  Scripture. 
How  easy  thus  to  make  the  New  Testament  testify  to 
anything  the  most  absurd. 

V.  "  Has  the  claim  of  Episcopacy  to  be  of  divine 
institution,  the  authority  of  Scripture  ?"  "  No  argu- 
ment is  worth  taking  into  account  that  has  not  a  palpa- 
ble bearing  on  *  *  *  the  scriptural  evidence  of 
Episcopacy."!    We  can  have  no  objection  to  such  a  test, 

*  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,  p.  372. 
f  Onderdonk,  p.  1 . 


The  New  Testament  Blshop.  121 


for  if  Episcopacy  be  "  essential "  to  a  well  founded  hope 
of  salvation,  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  of  those  whom 
he  inspired  to  reveal  "  the  things  profitable  for  doctrine, 
reproof,  and  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man 
of  God  might  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all 
good  works,"*  will  surely  make  it  plain  to  every  honest, 
inquiring  mind.  "I  am  firmly  persuaded,"  says  the 
Bishop  of  London,  "  that  all  the  essential  doctrines  of 
Christianity  would  have  been  discoverable  in  the  Bible," 
"  if  no  formularies  had  been  drawn  out.  The  imple- 
ment," he  adds,  "  with  which  the  secrets  of  God  are  to  be 
dug  out  of  the  written  Word,  is  a  plain  and  rightly  in- 
formed understanding,  guided  by  an  honest  and  good 
heart,  and  aided  by  the  Holy  Spirit."t 

"  What,  then,  saith  the  Scripture  ?  How  readest 
thou?"    "The  name   bishop,"  says  Dr.  Onderdonk, 

when  we  find  it  in  the  New  Testament,  we  must  regard 
as  meaning  the  bishop  of  a  parish  (i.  e.pastor  of  a  church) 
or  a  presbyter,"  p.  20.  The  power  or  right  of  ordina- 
tion— whether  committed  to  presbyters,  or  "  to  the 
agency  of  a  minister  of  higher  grade  than  presbyters  " — 
is  declared  "  to  be  the  main  issue."  Episcop.  Tested  by 
Scripture,  p.  18.  None  but  diocesan  bishops  are  scrip- 
turally  empowered  to  ordain  other  bishops  and  presby- 
ters ;  so  we  are  told  by  other  High  Churchmen ;  so  that 
all  pretended  ministers  of  the  gospel  not  thus  ordained, 
are  nothing  but  laymen !  But,  if  this  be  true,  how  ex- 
traordinary, and  as  before  stated,  that  so  many  of  the 
most  learned  and  able  presbyters  and  bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  well  as  others,  can  find  no  such 
doctrine  in  the  Scriptures !  "  If  in  any  church,"  says 
the  Rev.  Wm.  Goode,  Episcopal  minister  of  London,  "  a 
presbyter  be  appointed  by  his  co-presbyters  to  be  the 
l)i<hop  or  superintendent,  or  president  of  that  church, 
and  perform'  the  usual  duty  of  the  Episcopal  function, 

-  2  Tim.  3  ;  16,  17. 

t  Charge,  1842.  "There  are  men  who  teach  that  if  you  will 
but  read  the  Bible  and  seek  God's  aid  by  prayer,  he  will  infalli- 
bly guide  you  into  all  truth.  Can  any  man  believe  *  *  * 
this  teaching  to  be  true."  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,  p.  335.  "The 
Bishop  of  London  "  needs  to  be  more  fully  instructed ! !  Let 
him  come  over  here  1 


122  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


WE  CANNOT  PROVE  either  by  Scripture  or  by  the  conseat 
of  the  apostolically-primitive  church,  that  his  acts  are 
by  apostolical  ordinance  invalid."  "  Scripture  does 
NOT  SHOW  that  Episcopal  consecration  is  a  sine  qua  non 
to  the  valid  exercise,"  &c.  &c.*  Thus,  according  to  Mr. 
Goode,  presbyters  have  a  valid  right  to  ordain  not  only 
other  presbyters  (which  is  the  Presbyterian  doctrine)  but 
also  bishops. 

"That  the  apostles  ordained,"  says  Bishop  Onder- 
donk,  "  all  agree ;  but  that  presbyters  or  elders  did,  we 
deny."t  But,  replies  Mr.  Goode,  "  supposing  the  apos- 
tles to  have  appointed  the  first  bishops  (i.  e.  "  bishops  of 
parishes,"  as  Doctor  O.  concedes)  in  twelve  churches,  I 
WANT  TO  KNOW  where  we  are  informed  that  when  the 
bishop  of  one  of  them  died,  the  church  of  the  deceased 
bishop  depended  upon  the  will  and  pleasure  of  the  re- 
maining eleven  bishops  for  a  president  (or  pastor)'  and 
could  not  appoint  and  create,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
own  president  out  of  its  own  body  of  presbyters."  j 
Suppose,  for  illustration,  that  the  senior  pastor  among 
Paul's  "  bishops  "  at  Philippi  (Philipp.  1 :  1)  had  died. 
Did  the  other  presbyters,  pastors  or  bishops  at  once 
send  to  Corinth,  Jerusalem,  Rome,  &c.,  and  to  obtain 
the  will  and  pleasure  of  the  other  eleven  as  to  whom  they 
should  elect  to  the  vacant  Presidency  (pastorate)  or 
episcopate?  If  Episcopalians  themselves,  even  the 
most  learned  of  them,  can  find  no  authority  anyvihere 
for  such  a  view  of  primitive  church  government,  it  is 
strong  presumptive  proof  against  the  prelatical  dogma 
of  an  exclusive  right  to  ordain,  vested  in  any  order 
called  bishops. 

VI.  Let  us  now  look  at  some  of  these  scriptural  ex- 
amples of  ordination,  that  we  may  decide  whether  the 
High  Church  doctrine  be  true,  viz.,  "  that  the  apostles 
ordained,  but  presbyters  did  not."  Take,  for  instance, 
the  ordination  of  Timothy:  "  Neglect  not  the  gift  that 
is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  1  Tim.  4  :  14. 

*  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  2,  p.  58. 
t  Episcop.  Tested,  &c.,  p.  22. 
X  Rule  of  Faith,  p.  59. 


Okdixation  by  the  Pkesbytery.  12;> 

The  same  word  is  used  for  the  Sanhedrim,  "  the  elders  of 
the  people"  (Luke  22  :  66).  Again  in  2  Tim.  1 :  6,  "Stir 
up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  ou 
of  my  hands."  Now  either  Paul  refers  to  the  same 
ordination  in  the  two  texts  quoted,  or  to  two  separate 
ordinations.  If  it  be  the  same,  then  if  only  the  apostle 
had  a  divine  right  to  "  lay  on  hands,"  he  must  mean  by 
"  presbytery  "  only  hbnself!  But  if,  as  some  Episcopa- 
lians contend,  Paul  refers  to  two  ordinations  of  Timothy, 
the  first  as  presbyter,  the  second  as  bishop,  still  the  first 
ordination  was  by  "  the  presbytery,"  and  here  is  the  very 
thing  denied,  viz.,  "  that  presbyters  did  ordain !"  If  the 
apostle,  as  president  or  moderator  of  "  the  presbytery," 
led  in  the  service,  all  is  plain ;  for  all  the  other  presby- 
ters united  with  him.  This  is  Presbyterianism.  Even 
Archbishop  Potter  concedes  that  "  there  was  a  Presby- 
tery or  college  of  elders  (or  presbyters)  in  the  place 
where  Timothy  was  ordained ;  for  it  was  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  their  hands  he  received  his  orders."*  And  the 
Ehemist  translators  (Papists)  render  the  passage,  "  with 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  priesthood,"  and  quote  the 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Carthage,  requiring  all  the 
priests  (elders  or  presbyters)  present  to  lay  on  hands 
with  the  bishop.  But  if  this  be  the  right  view,  then 
presbyters  possess  the  power  or  right  of  ordination.  To 
allege  that  the  term  "  presbytery "  means  a  council  of 
bishops,  except  in  the  parochial  sense  of  pastor  of  a 
church,  is  a  lame  begging  of  the  question.  Bishop 
Beveridge  expounds  these  passages,  thus :  "  Paul  says 
Timothy  received  the  Spirit  by  the  laying  on  of  his 
hands,  notwithstanding  the  Presbytery  (i.  e.  the  elders ) 
joined  ivith  him  in  it."-f  Nothing  could  more  clearly  de- 
monstrate the  embarrassment  which  these  •  texts  cause 
to  High  Churchmen,  than  the  numerous  shifts  and  de- 
vices to  which  they  are  obliged  to  resort  in  reconciling 
them  with  their  theory.  Thus  Bishop  Ouderdonk  refers 
to  Calvin,  as  countenancing  the  opinion  that  the  word 
presbyterium  (the  presbytery)  refers  to  the  office,  not 
to  the  company  who  ordained.    But  this  is  a  misrepre- 

*  On  Ch.  Govt.  pp.  105,  67,  267. 
t  Works,  vol.  2,  pp.  121,  122. 


124  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


sentation.  Calvin,  in  the  "  Institutes,"  written  in  his 
younger  days,  did  indeed  express  a  doubt  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  term  ;  "  it  is  not  certain,"  he  says.  But 
in  his  later  and  more  mature  judgment,  as  in  his  Com- 
mentary, he  expressly  affirms  that  "those  who  think 
jireshytery  a  collective  noun  for  the  college  of  presbyters, 
think  rightly — "pro  coUegio  presbyterorum  positum, 
recte  sentiunt,  me  judice  "* 

The  notion  that  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus, 
where  Paul  "  besought  him  still  to  abide,  when  he  went 
into  Macedonia,"!  is  a  main  pillar  of  the  prelatical 
edifice.  But  does  Paul  ever  call  him  "  bishop  ?"  Ko. 
But  he  does  speak  of  him  as  an  "  evangelist."  And 
what  was  "  the  work  of  an  evangelist  ?"  To  preach  and 
organize  churches  in  cities  and  regions  destitute  of 
regular  organizations.  This  is  so  obvious  that  the 
learned  Episcopal  commentator  Whitby  says,  "  Both 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  evangelists,  *  *  whose 
work,  saith  Eusebius,  was  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
faith  in  barbarous  nations  and  pass  to  other  countries." 
"  As  to  the  great  controversy,"  adds  Whitby,  "  whether 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  indeed  made  bishops,  the  one 
of  Ephesus,  the  other  of  Crete — I  confess  I  CAif  find 
NOTHING  in  any  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries,  nor 
any  intimation  that  they  bore  that  name.  If  we  are  to 
understand,"  he  continues,  "  that  they  took  upon  them 
those  churches  or  dioceses  as  their  Jixed  and  peculiar 
charge,  I  believe  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  thus 
bishops."!  "  The  office  of  an  evangelist  of  old,"  says 
Dr.  Scott,  the  Episcopal  commentator,  "  should  be  con^, 
sidered  as  perfectly  distinct  from  that  of  a  bishop  ;"  and 
the  same  learned  writer  observes,  "We  cannot  by  any 
means  infer  "the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy  from  the  au- 
thority exercised  by  Timothy,  Titus  and  other  evangelists, 
yet  it  is  at  least  highly  probable  that  it  was  very  early 
found  expedient  *  *  *  to  have  a  stated  presiding 
inspector,  of  approved  wisdom  and  piety,  who  might 

*  Comm.  on  1  Tim.  4 :  14. 
1 1  Tim.  1 :  3. 

X  Preface  to  Comm.  on  Titus.  "  Certain  it  is,"  adds  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, "  that  in  the  first  three  centuries,  neither  Timothy  nor  Titus  is 
styled  bishop  by  any  writer. 


Bishops  Timothy  and  Titus.  125 


superintend  the  pastors  and  the  concerns  of  a  few  neigh- 
boring churches  as  moderator  or  censor,  and  be  pecu- 
liarly attended  to  in  the  appointment  of  church  offi- 
cers."* Such,  we  have  already  seen,  has  always  been 
" the  Consistory  "  of  the  French  Protestant  churches; 
and  this  is  substantially  Presbyterianism.  "  There  is  no 
proof,"  sa3's  Dr.  Scott,  "that  Timothy  ever  steadily  re- 
sided at  Ephesus."    Com.  on  Rev.  2:1. 

There  is  also  a  chronological  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
the  prelatical  assumption  that  Timothy  was  "  diocesan 
bishop  of  Ephesus,"  or  indeed  that  he  made  that  city 
his  permanent  residence.  The  first  Epistle  was  written 
to  him  at  Ephesus,  according  to  Dr.  Scott  and  other 
accurate  authors,  in  the  year  A.  D.  60.t  But  in  A.  D. 
61,  we  find  Paul  sending  "  from  Miletus  to  Ephesus  for 
the  elders  of  the  church"  (Acts  20:  17),  and  address- 
ing them  as  "  bish  ops  (episkopous)  whom  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  made,  to  feed  the  church."  But  where  was  Tim- 
othy ■?  "  He  was  the  only  true  Bishop  of  Ephesus,"  say 
the  prelatists.  But  Paul  does  not  so  much  as  give  a 
hint  of  any  such  arrangement,  but  calls  the  elders 
"  bishops !"  "  Every  impartial  man  must  allow,"  says 
Dr.  Scott,  an  Episcopalian,  "  that  if  Timothy  had  at 
this  time  been  "  Bishop  of  Ephesus,"  in  the  sense. for 
which  some  contend,  the  apostle  would  have  given  these 
elders  (or  bishops')  some  exhortation  to  pay  a  proper  de- 
ference to  his  Episcoi)al  authority."  To  escape  from 
this  difficulty.  Dr.  Hammond  plunges  into  another.  He 
supposes  the  "  elders  of  Ephesus  "  were  "  the  diocesan 
bishops  of  all  the  Asiatic  churches !"  But,  as  Dr.  Scott 
well  remarks,  "  this  only  exposes  the  cause  it  was  meant 
to  support."  "  How  could  these  bishops  (with  all  the 
impediments  of  that  day,)  have  been  got  together  at  so 
short  a  notice?"  "Did  they  all  reside  at  Ephesus? 
Had  they  left  the  charge  of  their  dioceses  to  others  ?"f 

*Conim.  1  Tim.  5:  21,  22. 

t  Dr.  Lardner  dates  the  first  Epistle  A.  D.  56;  Michselis,  Gro- 
tius,  Lightfoot,  Cappel,  Benson,  refer  it  to  A.  D.  68.  Others  have 
placed  it  later,  but  the  weight  of  testimony  is  in  favor  of  tlie 
early  date. 

t  Scott's  Comm.  on  Acts  20:  17-28. 


12 


126  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


But  as  Timothy  was  required  to  "  do  the  work  of  an 
evangelist,"  there  is  not  "  a  particle  of  evidence,  either 
in  or  out  of  tlie  Bible,  that  he  ever  resided  at  Ephesus 
in  any  capadii/,  for  twelve  mouths  at  a  time.  We  hear 
of  him  in  Lystra,  Phrygia,  Galatia,  Troas,  Macedonia, 
Samothracia,  Neapolis,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Berea, 
Athens,  Corinth,  Jerusalem,  Rome— so  that  we  have 
nearly  as  good  evidence  that  he  was  bishop  of  a  half 
dozen  other  places,  as  that  he  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus."* 
We  concede  that  a  single  apostle  had,  as  au  inspired 
man,  the  right  to  ordain,  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
Timothy  or  Titus  exercised  that  power.  Even  an  apos- 
tle, as  wc  have  seen,  laid  hands  on  Timothy,  not  ignor- 
ing the  rights  "of  the  presbytery."  But  if  the  facts  were 
otherwise ;  if  Titus,  acting  as  an  evangelist,  had  been 
directed  "  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city  of  Crete,"  with- 
out any  co-operation  of  "  the  presbytery,"  it  is  well 
known  that  a  single  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
may  and  often  does  ordain  ruling  elders  and  deacon*. 
The  requirement  of  a  plurality  to  ordain  even  a  teaching 
presbyter,  is  regarded  rather  as  a  ])rudential  rule  than 
of  necessary  obligation .  There  are  Presbyterian  churches 
which  consider  ordination  by  a  single  pastor,  i.  e.  scrip- 
tural bishop,  as  valid,  and  act  accordingly  !"t  But  the 
powers  of  Timothy  and  Titus  as  "evangelists,"  may  be  re- 
gurded  as  special  and  e.iiraordinary.  And  if  Titus  had, 
singly  and  alone,  ordained  other  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
so  did  Paul  and  Barnabas  (Acts  14 :  20-28)  at  Lystra, 
Icouium  and  Antioch.  It  tbllows,  therefore,  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas  were  bisJwps  of  those  cities,  as  really  as 
that  Titus  was  Bishop  of  Crete.  Besides,  when  Paul 
says  to  Timothy,  "  I  besourjht  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephe- 
sus," why  beseech  a  bishop  to  remain  in  his  diocese  ?  If 
Ephesus  had  been  the  diocese  of  Timothy,  would  he 
have  proposed  to  leave  it  when  Paul  went  into  Mace- 
donia (1  Tim.  1 :3),  and  thus  made  it  necessary  for  Paul 
to  beseech  him  not  to  abandon  his  Episcopal  station, 
*Eib.  Repertory,  January,  1830. 

t  Ibid.,  p  53.  Circumstances  cm  readily  be  conceived  in  desti- 
tute regions,  where  these  acts  might  be  properly  performed  by  a 
missionary  or  evangelist,  himself  ordained- 


OllUliSATIUN  BY  PjRESBYTEES. 


127 


but  to  remain  in  order  to  withstand  certain  false  teachers? 
So  wlicn  Paul  afterwards  (2  Tim.  4:9)  requested  him, 
without  delay,  to  come  to  him  at  Rome,  to  be  his  com- 
panion and  a.-<.sistunt  there— these  are  sfmnge  things  in 
the  history  of  a  pre/n.ticiil  bishojy ;  but  they  suit  very 
well  the  character  of  an  "  evangelist."  The  same  rea- 
soning applies'  to  Titus,  v.'hom  Paul  directed  to  come  to 
him  at  Kicopolis,  where  he  had  determined  to  winter. 
(Tit.  3:  12.)  "  Evangelists,"  says  the  judicious  Hooker, 
"  were  presbyters  of  principal  sufficiency,  and  only  differ- 
ent from  other  presbyters,  in  not  being  settled  in  any 
charge."*  They  are  indeed  addressed  personally  (thozi, 
thee,  &c.),  but  so  Christ  addressed  Peter  as  representing 
the  whole  number  of  the  ;!])ostlos.    John  21 :  15. 

VII.  Another  example  of  ordination  by  a  presbyter, 
is  found  in  Acts  14:  23.  "They  (Paul  and  Barnabas) 
ordained  them  elders  in  every  church."  The  fathers 
Clement,  Eusebius  and  Epiphanius,  say  Barnabas  was 
one  of  the  "  seventy."  Certainly  w^e  have  no  informa- 
tion of  his  having  been  made  an  apostle,  as  Paul  was. 
Hooker  says  the  "seventy  disciples"  were  presbyters. 
It  is  true,  in  Acts  14  :  14  we  read  of  "  the  apostles  Bar- 
nabas and  Paul,"  and  hence  High  Churchmen  infer  that 
there  may  have  been  numerous  other  apostles  in  the 
official  sense  of  the  term,  besides  "  the  twelve."t  But 
the  argument  is  sophistical.  In  2  Cor.  8 :  23,  24,  Paul 
uses  the  same  term,  "our  brethren,  the  messengers 
(apostoloip  of  the  churches,"  i.  e  says  the  Episcopal 
Dr.  Scott,  "messengers  of  the  churches  entrusted  with 
the  contributions  of  the  Christians  for  their  Jewish 
brethren,"  "  this  grace  or  gift,"  as  Paul  calls  it,  v.  19. 
So  Christ  is  called  "the  apostle  and  high  priest  of  our 
profession,"  in  reference  to  his  having  been  sent  by  the 
Father.  There  are  many  similar  examples  of  the  non- 
official  use  of  the  term.§    But  when  Paul  assumes  this 

*See  his  Eccles.  Polity,  bonk  V,  sec.  78. 
t  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,  p.  399. 

t  The  Greek  term  often  meaning  persons  "sent  forth"  on  any 
public  or  private  duty. 

?  So  in  common  plirase  we  speak  of  Wesley  as  the  apostle  of 
Methodism,  &c. 


128  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


official  character,  as  one  specially  appointed,  among  nther 
most  honorable  offices,  to  be  the  penman  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  a  witness  for  Christ,  how  marked  the  dis- 
tinction between  himself  and  all  others:  "Paul,  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Clirist,  by  the  will  of  God,  and  Timo- 
thy our  brother."*  Such  phraseology  as  the  foregoing,  in 
regard  to  "  the  messengers,"  &c.,  is  a  veiy  flimsy  foun- 
dation for  a  list  of  successors  to  the  original  apostolic 
college.t  No  one  questions  that  several  other  persons 
are  in  the  Scriptures  designated  by  the  terms  "  apostles," 
in  the  familiar  and  non-official  sense,  viz  ,  as  persons 
se7it  to  a  particular  place  and  on  a  special  errand,  and 
so  we  sometimes  speak  of  "  the  apostle  of  Mormonism." 
But  when  Paul  aimed  to  establish  his  divine  mission 
as  an  "  apostle  of  Christ,"  he  appeals  to  the  fact  that 
"  he  harl  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  and  to  the  seals  of 
his  ministry;  "are  ye  not  my  work  in  the  Lord."  (1  Cor. 
9:  1.)  "He,  like  the  other  apostles,  could  take  up  ser- 
pents and  drink  any  deadly  thing  without  harm,"  whiclr 
our  modern  apo.^f/rs  ( diocesan  bishops)  do  not  pre- 
tend to  perform !  In  regard  to  tliose  who  are  called 
"  pi'ophets,"  Archbishop  Potter  admits  that  they  were 
"one  and  the  same  order  as  the  evangelists,  but  differently 
endowed." 

VIH.  Similar  difficulties  beset  the  doctrine  that  James 
was  "  prelatical  Bishop  ol'  Jerusalem."  We  have  seen 
that  no  such  order  as  distinct  from  presbytere  is  ever 
mentioned  in  the  salutations  of  Paul  to  the  churches,  or 
in  his  address  to  the  elders  or  bishops  of  Ephesus.  It  is 
equally  obvious  that  both  ordination  and  government,  the 
two  powers  said  to  belong  to  bishops,  are  clearly  invest- 
ed in  presbyters:  ''Obey  them  which  have  the  rule 
over  you,"  "feed  the  flock  of  God,  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,"  c.  as  l^efore  expressed, 
"presbyters  or  elders."  In  the  light  of  such  facts,  what 
plausible  reasons  can  be  derived  from  Acts  15 :  that 
James  was  diocesan  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  ? 

(1.)  "The  apostles  and  elders  (or  presbyters)  came 

*  Coll.  1 :  1  ;  2  Cor.  1:1. 

f  For  a  remarkable  specimen  of  this  sort  of  sophistry,  see  chap. 
22  of  '■  Clergyman  Lonkins,"  Af- 


CoNCEKNiNG  Bishop  JAMEt^.  129 


together  to  consider  of  tins  matter,"  i.  e.  the  matter  of 
circumcision.  They  I'ormod  but  one  cuuucil.  How  dif- 
ferent from  an  Episcopal  "House  of  Bishops"  and  "a 
House  of  Lay-Delegates!" 

(2.)  There  is  no  evidence  that  even  the  apostles 
claimed  the  least  pfc-emineuce  as  members  of  tlie  Synod 
of  Jerusalem,  iu  virtue  of  their  apostolical  character. 
High  Churchism  claims  that  tliey  were  the  first  and 
highest  order;  but  here  they  mingled  with  "the  ciders" 
as  ordinary  members  of  the  Synod.  They  spake  and 
reasoned,  and  advised  as  to  the  proper  course  to  be  pur- 
sued, and  gave  their  judgment  in  the  case.  After  there 
had  been  "much  disputing,"  it  "pleased  the  apostles  and 
elders  and  brethren  (the  whole  church,  v.  22)  to  send 
chosen  men  of  their  own  company,  to  Antioch,  with 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  &c."  Prelatists  have  labored  to 
make  what  iu  our  version  is  called  James'  "sentence," 
an  " authoritative  decision."  Thus  Archbishop  Potter: 
"  Peter  addresses  the  council,  but  James  enacts  the 
law."  But  Dr.  Mason  has  shown  at  length,  that  the 
Greek  term  here  used,  and  translated  "judgment,"  is  the 
ordinary  expression  in  Homer,  Thucydides,  &c.,  to  ex- 
press the  result  of  one's  own  refleetiong.  So  the  apostle, 
"Seeing  ye  judge  yourselves  uuwortliy,"  Acts  13:  46. 
"The  lov(>  of  ('lirisl  constraiiii'th  us,  because  we  tlius 

judge,"  &c.  Thi  i'r  i.<  im  autimrihitive  seidence  iu  these 
and  scores  oi'  siiuihii- exaiuplt's."'  Besides,  that  "James 
did  not  ordain  the  law,"  js  proved,  chap.  16 :  4.  "  Paul 
and  Silas  delivered  to  the  cities  the  decrees  that  were 
ordained,"  not  by  James,  but  "of  the  apostles  and  eld- 
ers." ^Of  course  James  did  not  pronounce  "  the  authori- 
tative sentence."  More  than  this :  these  "  decrees " 
were  obeyed  througliout  the  churches  of  Asia.  Were 
they  a^^  subject  to  James  as  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem? 
That  council  was  not  composed  of  persons  belonging  to 

.  his  diocese.  What  right  had  he,  then,  to  pronounce  an 
authoritative  '•  sentence  "  in  the  case  ?  And  so  in  Paul's 
interview  with  James  (Acts  21 :  18-25),  "  all  the  elders 

*  James  uses  tlie  very  (brm  by  which  the  members  of  the  Greek 
assemblies  introduced  the  expression  of  their  indivfdual  opinion. 
See  Thucydides.    So  Cicero  in  his  orations,  sic  ceiiseo. 


130  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


(or  presbyters)  were  present."  In  referring  to  the  acts 
of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  tbey  say,  "  We  have  written 
and  concluded,"  &c.,  &c.  And  they  proceed  to  advise 
him  to  a  particular  course  of  conduct.  But  Bishop 
James  meanwhile  is  left  in  the  background!  The 
apostolic  hUhop  does  not  open  his  mouth  ! 

(8.)  The  office  of  apostle  was  incompatible  with  that 
of  diocesan  bishop.  The  former  was  chiefly  extraordi- 
nary and  temporary,  the  result  of  an  immediate  divine 
call  and  accompanied  with  supernatural  gifts.  The 
person  was  sent  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  church, 
his  diocese  "  the  world."  To  set  an  apostle  down  per- 
manently in  a  particular  city,  was  to  ignore  in  great 
measure  his  peculiar  character  and  to  nullify  his  broad 
commission.  For  such  reasons  as  these,  we  deny  that 
James  Avas  ever  diocesan  Bishop  of  Jerusalem. 

IX.  But  we  are  pointed  to  "  an  absolute  demonstra- 
tion" of  diocesan  Episcopacy  in  "the  angels  of  the 
seven  churches"  of  the  Revelation.  These  angels  are 
said  by  High  Churchmen  to  have  been  prelatical  bish- 
ops beyond  all  question !  "  Each  of  these  seven  churches," 
says  Bishop  Onderdouk,  "  is  addressed,  not  through  its 
clergy  at  large,  but  through  its  '  angel,'  or  chief  minis- 
ter ;  this  alone  is  a  very  strong  argument  in  favor  of 
Episcopacy."*  But  the  ver}'  same  thing  takes  place  iu 
Presbyterianism,  when  "  the  moderator  of  a  presbytery  " 
or  a  pastor  of  a  church  is  addressed  on  any  topic  ! 
Who  ever  thinks  of  addressing  a  presbytery  or  synod 
iu  any  other  manner?  So  also  in  writing  to  a  single 
church,  who  is  addressed  but  the  bishop  or  pastor?  Dr. 
O.'s  "  very  strong  argument "  will  not  bear  inspection.  But 
it  is  an  Episcopal  assumption  that  the  term  "  angel "  in 
these  passages  means "  single  men,  never  a  society  or 
number  of  men."  "  This,"  we  are  further  told,  "  is  its 
"  constant  vse  in  the  book  of  Revelation."  But  here  is 
a  great  mistake.  "  I  saw,"  says  John,  "  another  angel  fly 
in  the  midst  of  heaven,  having  the  everlasting  gospel  to 
preach,"  &c.  Rev.  14:  6.  The  Episcopal  Dr.  Scott  in- 
terprets the  term  angel  "  as  an  emblem  of  those  who 

*  Episcop.  Tested,  &c.,  p.  43. 


The  Apocalyptic  Angels.  131 


first  publicly  erected  tlie  standard  of  Rcformatiou,  *'  * 
*  *  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  who  had  the  true 
gospel,"  &c.  These  communities  were  surely  not  "  sin- 
gle men !"  But  there  is  sufficient  evidence  in  the  seven 
Epistles  themselves,  that  they  were  not  addressed  to 
seven  single  men.  "Behold,"  says  Christ,  "the  devil 
shall  cast  some  of  you  into  prison,  that  ye  may  be 
tried,  and  ye  shall  have  tribulation  ten  days."*  This  is 
addressed  to  "  tlie  angel  of  the  church  at  Smyrna." 
Bishop  Onderdonk  shuns  the  snare  into  which  others 
had  fallen.  He  does  not  venture  the  broad  assertion 
that  the  term  "angel"  is  ''never  applied  to  a  society  or 
number  of  men."  "  Observe,"  he  says,  the  "  emphatic  use 
(not '  constant  use ')  of  the  singular  number,"  and  then 
he  copies  nearly  a  page  of  emphatic  "  tiious  "  and 
"thees!"  And  because  Paul  in  writing  to  Timothy 
addresses  him  witli  the  personal  thou  and  thee — ergo, 
reasons  Dr.  Onderdonk,  Timothy,  having  been  a  ])rc- 
latical  bishop,  the  angels  must  have  been  bishops  like- 
wise ! !  This  is  the  sort  of  reasoning  which  he  calls  a 
"very  close  approximation  to  demonstrative  proof!"! 
Yet  Dr.  Scott,  who  avows  his  belief  in  moderate 
Episcopacy,  assures  us  that  "there  is  no  proof 
that  Timothy  ever  statedly  resided  at  Ephesus." 
"Is  it  not  evident,"  asks  Bishop  O.,  that  "Timothy 
had  supreme  ]iower  over  the  clergy  there?"  Evident 
fromAvhat?  Wliy,  from  such  phraseology  as  this,  "These 
things  write  I  unto  thee,"  "  this  charge  commit  I 
unto  thee,''  "that  thoii  mightest  know,"  "against  an 
elder  receive  not  (<Aott)  an  accusation,"  "  lay  (</iom)  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man,"  and  so  on  through  more  than 
another  page,  italics  and  all !  "  This"  (demonstration) 
he  says,  "  we  think  is  complete."  "  All  minds,  however," 
he  prudently  adds,  "do  not  appreciate  evidence  equally!" 

*Rev.  2:  8-10. 

t  Episcoj).  Testoil,  p.  4G.  As  to  tlic  use  of  the  singular  forms 
THOD  and  'iiiEE  to  designate  a  iniikitudc,  see  Kxod.  15  :  26.  "  If 
THOU  wilt  hearken,  I  will  put  none  of  the  diseases  upon  thee 
which  I  have  put  upon  the  Egyptians,  for  1  am  the  Lord  thy 
God  which  healeth  thee,"  i.  e.  healeth  the  millions  of  the  host 
of  Israel. 


132 


High  Cuukch  Ei-iscoi-acv. 


There  is  some  apology,  therefore,  for  us  Presbyterians ! 
If,  in  giving  instructions  to  one  of  our  missionaries  or 
evangelists,  the  moderator  of  a  presbytery  should  use 
such  or  similar  language  (as  is  very  often  done)  we 
should  certainly  be  very  slow  to  "  appreciate  the  evi- 
dence "  that  said  thou  and  thee  was  demonstrative 
proof  of  the  appointment  of  a  bishop,  either  of  ladia 
or  South  America ! 

The  title  "  angel  of  the  church,"  is  borrowed,  accord- 
ing to  Prideaux,  Vitringa  and  others,  from  the  designa- 
tion of  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  Jewish  synagogue. 
But  that  ofiice  had  no  resemblance  whatever  to  that  of 
a  modern  prelate.  The  angel  of  the  synagogue  was  not 
the  chief  ruler,  but  occupied  a  subordinate  jiositiou'and 
was  subject  to  the  bench  of  elders.  Had  bishops  been 
originally  constituted  prelates  and  called  "  angels,"  thej' 
would  never  have  parted  with  so  complimentary  a  de- 
signation. Abi  )ut  a  century  later  we  begin  to  find  traces 
of  a  hierarchy,  and  extreme  anxiety  to  discover  some- 
thing like  a  tooting  for  it  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 
But,  strange  to  say,  the  earliest  prelates  are  not  knowTi 
by  the  name  of  "  angels."  No  trace  of  such  a  use  of 
the  term,  says  Dr.  Killen,  "can  be  detected  even  in  the 
second  century."*  Tertulliau  also  regarded  the  "  angel 
of  the  church  "  as  an  invisible  intelligence,  and  so  did 
Origen.  Long  ajier  the  rise  of  the  hierarchy,  two  or 
three  rare  cases  occur  of  a  bishop  being  called  "  an 
angel,"  in  allusion  to  the  language  of  the  Apocalypse, 
but  this  proves  nothing,  except  that  the  system  was  in 
great  need  of  Scripture  proofs! 

Dr.  Killen,  in  his  recent  work,t  thinks  the  term 
means  simply  "a  messenger  of  the  church,"  referring  to 
a  similar  phraseology  in  2  Cor.  8  :  23,  and  Phil.  4 :  14, 
18,  "  messengers,"  or  angels  who  conveyed  "  the  contri- 
butions of  the  churches  to  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem." 
John,  the  last  of  the  apostles,  was  now  banished  to  Pat- 
mos  ;  and  these  "  angels "  were  the  organs  of  inter- 
course between  the  venerated  apostle  and  the  several 
churches.    Thus  they  communicated  to  his  necessities, 

*0n  the  Ancient  Church,  p.  267. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  208. 


The  Aaronic  Pkiesthooo.  ]3o 


and  ho  in  turn,  sent  back  the  rich  treasures  of  inspired 
counsel  and  instruction.  If  compelled  to  decide  be- 
tween this  interpretation  and  that  of  the  prelatists,  the 
preference  must  be  given  to  that  of  Dr.  K.  But  it  is 
not  necessary  to  accept  of  either.  The  Apocalyptic 
"  angel "  was  the  pastor  of  the  church,  or  perhaps  an 
officer  resembling  the  angel  of  the  synagogue. 

X.  High  Churchmen  place  much  confidence  in  a  cer- 
tain analogy  derived  from  the  Levitical  priesthood,  con- 
sisting of  the  high  priest,  the  priests,  and  the  Levites. 
in  like  manner,  they  infer  there  are  "  tJiree  orders"  of 
luinisters  in  the  New  Testament  church,  viz.,  bishops, 
|)riests  and  deacons. 

The  obvious  reply  to  this  is,  that  it  involves  the  ab- 
surdity of  inferring  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
ministry  from  an  abrogated  institution.  Besides,  the 
))arallel  is  not  even  plausibly  sustained,  except  in  de- 
t'ence  of  Popery,  with  its  Poiitifex  maxbnm,  or  supreme 
liead  at  Rome.  So  there  was  hut  one  high  jjricst.  The 
Scriptures  represent  the  whole  .Jewish  priesthood  as  one 


by  ordination,  nor  did  he  ordain  other  priests.  Aaron 
and  his  sous  were  princes  of  their  tribe,  their  eminence 
was  in  virtue  of  family  connexion  and  descent,  but  as 
Milton  observes,  "modeni  prelacy  does  not  run  in  the 
blood,  nor  descend  by  liereditary  succession."  More 
than  this,  the  xiaronic  priesthood  had  the  most  explicit 
and  imequivocal  foundation  in  divine  appointment,  and 
was  supported  by  prophetic  and  miraculous  attestation. 
In  these  and  other  particulars  the  analogy  utterly  fails 
to  help  the  cause  of  High  Church  Episcopacy.  Clirist 
is  "the  high  priest  of  the  Christian  profession,"  the 
Aaronic  "priesthood  being  changed  in  the  change  of  the 
law,"  as  Paul  reasons,  Heb.  8  :  13.  We  want  no  other 
"  high  priest."  If  any  choose  to  say  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament elders  or  presbyters  bear  an  analogy  to  the 
priests,  "the  sons  of  Aaron,"  the  resemblance  is  cer- 
tainly not  worse  than  that  of  High  Churchism.  But  it 
has  been  demonstrably  proved  by  the  ablest  writers  that 
the  polity  of  the  Christian  church  was  copied  from  the 
svnagogue,  not  fron^  the  temple.    Our  Saviour  wor- 


"  order,"  and  the  high 


134  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


shipped  in  the  synagogue,  which  had  its  bishop,  pastor, 
presbyter  or  aiigel  of  the  church.  There  was  besides  a 
bench  or  council  of  presbyters,  and  the  deacons  were 
appointed  to  attend  to  the  secuhir  affairs,  taking  care  of 
the  poor,  &c.  Here  was  the  New  Testament  model  of 
the  Christian  church.  This  is  acknowledged  by  some 
of  the  most  learned  of  the  Episcopal  sect.  So  great 
was  the  'similarity  to  the  synagogue,  that  the  pagans 
confounded  the  two,  and  Neauder  says  "  the  first 
churches  were  in  form  and  machinery  converted  syna- 
gogues."   See  also  Vitringa  de  Synagoga. 

In  regard  to  the  deacon,  who  belongs  to  the  third  or 
lowest  order  of  ministers,  a  few  words  may  suffice.  He 
receives  only  one  tactual  qualification  for  the  service  of 
the  sanctuary ;  but  this  authorizes  him,  inter  aim,  to 
"  baptize  infants  in  the  absence  of  the  priest,"  and  "  to 
preach,"  if  the  bishop  permit,  for  he  is  required  to  "  rev- 
erently oh"y  the  bishop  and  other  chief  ministers,"  just  in 
the  style  of  Pope  Innocent's  bull  for  exterminating  the 
Waldenses — "reverently  obey  t!ie  apostolical  mandates," 
i.e.  the  bloody  edicts  of  his  un-holiness! 

But  where  is  the  scriptural  proof  that  the  office  of 
deacon  embraced  the  duty  or  right  either  to  preach  or 
rule  in  the  church?  In  the  6th  chapter  of  Acts  we 
find  the  original  appointment  of  a  class  of  men  whose 
business  it  was  "  to  serve  tables,"  a  troublesome  and 
invidious  work  to  which  the  apostles  had  previously 
attended.  But  now  they  determine  to  devolve  these 
secular  affiiirs  upon  others,  "  but  we,"  say  they,  "  will 
give  ourselves  to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry  of  the 
word."  "  It  is  not  reason,"  they  add,  "  that  we  should 
LEAVE  the  word  of  God  and  serve  tables."  Observe 
how  distinct  the  spiritual  office  is  kept  from  the  secular. 
The  one  is  "  prayer  and  the  ministry  of  the  word,"  the 
other  is  "the  service  of  tables." 

"  It  is  evident,"  says  Dr.  Scott,  the  Episcopal  com- 
mentator, "that  they  were  appointed  to  take  care  of 
the  propeHij  of  the  church  and  not  to  the  pastoral  office." 
"  It  seems  undeniable  that  they  were  appointed  solely 
to  take  care  of  the  teifiporal  concerns  of  the  church,  and 
not  as  deacon?  to  jircach,  or  to  adminLster  sacred  ordi- 


'J'he  Xeav  Testament  DEArox. 


135 


nances."  But  do  we  not  find  Stephen  preaching  the  gos- 
pel ?  To  this  Dr.  Scott  furnishes  a  reply  thus :  "  It 
appears  to  me  very  likely  that  both  at  this  and  future 
periods,  many  who  were  appointed  deacons  in  the  first 
instance,  afterwards  became  evangelists  or  pastors;  and 
when  they  wore  fully  employed,  other  deacons  were  ap- 
pointed." 

The  Ejjiscopal  deacon,  according  to  the  Prayer  Book, 
may  regenerate  infants  in  baptism,  but  "  to  feed  tlie 
flock  of  Christ "  in  the  Lord's  supper  w'onld  be  highly 
improper,  we  suppose  quite  profiine  !  For  this  he  must 
receive  a  fresh  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands !  But 
where  has  Christ  made  any  such  absurd  distinction? 
The  Papist  can  plausibly  assign  some  sort  of  reason  for 
such  a  difference,  because  when  the  priest  is  made,  he 
is  supposed  to  work  the  miracle  of  transubstantiatiou, 
which  the  deacon  cannot  do !  Quite  naturally,  there- 
fore, the  deacon  of  the  Romish  Church  must  receive  a 
fresh  distillation  of  that  magical  something  which  has 
descended  in  regular  succession  for  1800  years  through 
the  apostolical  fingers  of  bishojos,  archbishops  and 
popes !  But  High  Churchmen  are  no  such  thaumatur- 
r/ids  or  wonder-workers — at  least  most  of  them  make  no 
such  pretensions. 

In  confirmation  of  these  views,  Origen  tells  us,  "the 
I  leacons  were  appointed  to  preside  over  the  tables  of  the 
church,  as  we  are  taught  in  the  v^cts."  Ambrose,  iu 
the  4th  century,  says:  "The  deacons  ordinarily  were 
not  authorized  to  preach."  Jerome  calls  the  deacon  "  a 
minister  of  tables  and  widows."  And  the  6th  general 
Council  of  Constantinople  decided  that  "the  scriptural 
deacons  were  no  other  than  overseers  of  the  poor,  and 
that  such  was  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  fathers."  So 
the  4th  Council  of  Carthage,  in  the  4th  canon,  declares 
"  the  deacon  is  ordained,  not  to  the  priesthood,  but  to 
the  inferior  services  of  the  church."  This  agrees  with 
Paul's  directions  to  Timothy,  in  which  he  does  not  place 
among  the  qualifications  of  a  deacon  that  he  should  be 
"  apt  to  teach,"  which  he  requires  of  all  who  are  bishops 
or  pastors.  "  Aptness  to  teach  "  was  not  a  requisite  for 
"  serving  tallies."    So  cviilent  is  it  that  (he  "  third  or- 


136  High  Church  Eplscopacy. 


der  "  of  the  prelatical  ministry  is  founded  upon  a  mis- 
interpretation of  Scripture.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find 
tests  to  prove  that  one  ordination  makes  a  preaching 
deacon,  two  ordinations  make  a  priest,  and  three  make  a 
bishop ! 

From  this  brief  abstract  of  the  Scripture  teachings  on 
the  subject  of  "  the  three  orders,  bishops,  priests  and 
deacons,"  we  may  readily  determine  how  much  truth 
there  is  in  the  statement  published  by  Dr.  Wainwright 
of  New  York,  viz.:  '■  Those  who  sat  at  the  feet  of  the 
apostles"  "did  reverently  judge  of  them  (the  three 
orders)  as  ordained  by  a  decree  from  everlasting,"  "  a 
very  type  also  and  present  figure  of  the  most  Holy 
Trinity  ;  and  so  absolutely  necessary  and  unchangeable 
for  all  time,  that  those  saints  and  martyrs  could  as 
hardly  have  set  themselves  to  contemplate  a  religion 
tvithout  Christ,  as  a  church  without  a  bishop!!"* 

*See  "Notes  on  the  Episcopal  Polity,  Ac,"  by  Dr.W. 


Testijiony  of  the  Fathers. 


137 


CHAPTER  X. 

DIFFICULTIES   IN    ACCEPTING   THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE 
FATHERS  A3  INTERPRETERS  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

The  importaucc  of  a  scriptural  connection  with  the 
cturch  of  Christ,  that  hody  wliich  He  has  bought  witli 
his  blood  aud  purifies  by  iiis  in-dwelliug  Spirit,  is  not 
easily  overrated.  But  when  Dr.  Van  D.,  in  speaking 
of  "the  variety  of  sects"  aud  the  evils  which  flow  from 
division  into  denominational  tribes,  aims  to  make  the 
impression  that  Presbyterians  and  others  "  contemplate 
all  bodies  calling  themselves  Christian,  as  equally  author- 
ized to  ilispense  the  bles-siugs  of  the  gospel,  equally  the 
institution  of  Christ,"  when  he  proceeds  to  denounce  as 
a  "delusion"  pervading  most  denominations  except  his 
own,  that  "  all  modes  are  equally  successful  in  the  pro- 
mulgation of  Christianity,"  and  that  they  may  "  be  mul- 
tiplied to  auy  extent  that  human  ingenuity  may  devise," 
he  either  deceives  himself,  or  is  guilty  of  a  breach  of 
the  ninth  coiiimaudraent.*  Indeed  he  himself  refutes  this 
statement  « hen  he  comes  to  discourse,  in  extravagant 
terms, of  "the  envying  aud  strife/'  "the  violent  struggles 
and  contests,"  "the  iutohTanee,  uuilice  and  persecu- 
tion," "  the  discontent,  suspicion  aud  hostility  "  of  these 
religious  bodies."  Surely  "  the  Rector  "  cannot  be  igno- 
rant that  most  controversies  in  religion  have  been  found- 
ed mainly  in  the  conviction  of  one  or  more  of  the  par- 
ties, that  all  denominational  forms  are  not  equally  scrip- 
tural and  successful,  of  course  not  equally  good.  We 
most  firmly  believe,  for  example,  that  the  Episcopal 
denomination,  especially  in  its  High  Church  develop- 

*  If  we  had  not  read  these  most  extraordinary  charges  in  the 
"Seven  Sermons,"  we  couhl  hardly  have  believed  that  any  re- 
spectable minister  could  have  uttered  thera,  at  least  any  one  of 
ordhiarv  int<  lligence  and  candor. 

13 


MidH  Ciuiiicu  Ki'f.scof'Acv. 


raents,  is  very  far  from  being  "  equally  successful "  in 
spreading  Christianity,  with  several  other  bodies  of  pro- 
fessed Christians.  Kor  would  it  be  at  all  difficult  to 
gather  from  these  "  Seven  Sermons  "  abundant  matter 
to  establish  the  position  on  incontrovertible  grounds. 

In  our  last  chapter  we  pointed  out  some  of  the  scrip- 
tural difficulties  in  the  way  of  receiving  "  the  three 
orders  of  the  ministry,  bishops,  priests  and  deacons." 
We  "  inquired  for  the  church  of  the  Apostles,"  and  the 
New  Testament  said  of  High  Churchism,  "  It  is  not  in 
me!"  But  "the  Rector"  also  bids  us  "examine  early 
church  history,"  and  "  inquire  for  the  church  of  the 
first  three  centuries."  Thus,  he  tells  us,  we  shall  find 
"  the  faith  which  even  at  the  Reformation  was  drawn 
from  the  word  of  God,  as  universally  interpreted  by  the 
early  church  during  the  first  three  centuries."*  In 
other  words,  this  is  the  direct,  short  and  easy  road  to 
High  Church  Episcopacy  !  But  in  the  practical  appli- 
cation of  this  much  lauded  rule,  there  are  several  serious 
obstacles. 

1.  It  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Van  Deusen  and  others  that 
"  the  Divine  Revelation  was  completed  some  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago,  and  that  the  divine  way  of  salvation 
was  then  fully  viade  Jnwuii,"  and  in  discovering  this 
"  divine  way,"  Dr.  Van  D.  exhorts,  "  Let  each  examine 
for  himself,"  "believe  that  creed  which  rests  upon  God's 
word  as  its  foundation."!  From  these  and  other  similar 
statements,  we  infer  that  he  has  no  objections  to  the 
sixth  of  the  39  Ai'ticles,  viz.,  "  Holy  Scripture  containeth 
all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  so  that  whatsoever  is 
not  read  therein  is  not  to  be  required  of  any,  &c.,  &c." 
But  if  this  be  so,  if  the  Author  of  the  Scriptures  in- 
tended that  the  "  divine  way  of  salvation  "  should  be 
"  fully  made  known,"  "  should  be  road  therein  and 
proved  thereby,"  as  the  Article  teaches — is  not  that  suffi- 
cient? What  more  can  we  want  ?  If  we  find  the  truth, 
or  in  other  terms,  "all  things  necessary  to  salvation," 
in  God's  word,  what  need  to  inquire  further,  to  "  inquire 
for  the  church  of  the  first  three  centuries  ?"  Does  God's 
*Chiirrh  in  Rep.,  pp.  104,  1.^)       +  Ihid.,  pp  I.Vi,  104. 


JoixiXG  Haxds  with  Ro:ie. 


159 


revealed  truth  stand  in  need  of  human  support  or  con- 
firmation? "  ]\Iay  we  not  ))elieve  the  teachings  of  the 
Father  of  lights  and  of  wisdom,"  until  we  have  "  in- 
quired of  the  fatliors  of  the  first  three  centuries?"  If 
tliis  be  so,  how  is  "  the  iliv!nc  w:iy  fully  made  known  in 
the  Scriptures?"  How  are  they  as  a  lamp  to  our  feet 
and  a  light  to  our  path  ? 

2.  Dr.  Van  D.  and  his  High  Church  brethren  gene- 
rally thus  appear  to  be  very  shy  of  the  great  Protestant 
principle  of  tlie  Rcfornialion,  viz.,  "  that  the  word  of 
God  is  the  onhj  and  the  all-sufficient  and  infallible  rule, 
to  direct  us  in  all  things  necessary  to  salvation."  They 
talk,  indeed,  in  very  profjer  terras  of  "the  armor  of 
God's  truth  and  the  strength  which  will  be  always  fur- 
nished by  the  holy  principles  of  his  inspired,  uncor- 
rupted  word,"*  but  to  discover  with  certainty  what  those 
"  holy  principles  "  are,  we  must  have  an  interpreter  to 
guide  us— we  must  "  inquire  of  the  first  three  centuries!" 
So  that  if  it  had  pleased  God  to  suffer  the  records  of  the 
church  of  that  period  utterly  to  perish,  the  Scripture^ 
would  have  been  unintelligible,  at  least  so  far  that  "  all 
things  necessary  to  salvatiim "  could  not  be  proved 
thereby.  But  this  is  to  contradict  Article  VI  of  the 
Prayer  Book.  "Let  each  examine  lor  himself,"  says 
Dr.  Van  D.  Examine  what  ?  "  Holy  Scripture,  which 
contains  all  thiugs  necessary  to  salvation,"  "  all  things 
required  of  any  man,"  and  which  "may  be  proved 
th.creby  ?"  Not  at  all  !  But  "  study  the  Scriptures  and 
early  churcli  history,"  "  inquire  for  the  church  of  tlie 
Apostles,  <nid  the  first  tiiree  centuries!"  Mr.  Van  D. 
certainly  differs  very  widely  from  his  own  Article  VI. 

3.  That  High  Churchism  has  tluis  virtually  joined 
hands  wiih  Rome,  and  that  Mr.  Van  D.  has,  in  sub- 
stance at  least,  ado]ited  the  popish  rule  of  faith,  viz., 
"  Seri])ture  and  tradition,"  is  obvious.  He  here  stands 
upon  the  very  ground  assumed  by  the  papists  in  assailing 
the  Episcopal  Church,  and  they  boldly  and  insolently 
charge  the  bishops,  priests  and  deacons  of  Dr.  Van  D.'s 
communion,  with  fraudulenUy  withholding  from  their 

»  Church  in  Rep.,  \>.  64. 


140 


High  CiiuKcn  EpiscojeAcy. 


flocks,  this  overwhelraiug  argument  for  popery,  as  de- 
rived from  the  liistory  of  the  primitive  church  !  Hear 
the  Romish  Bishop  of  Aire  un  tliis  topic ;  "  Your  own 
theologians,  no  less  than  ourselves,  have  in  their  hands 
the  ancient  liturgies  of  the  primitive  church,  and  the 
works  of  the  early  ecdeskidiml  writers."  And  then  he 
flatly  charges  these  Episcopal  "theologians  "  with  hase, 
deliberate  fraud  for  reasons  of  interest,  in  withiiolding 
"the  opinions  whicli  they  (these  "early  writers")  ex- 
press!"* He  atErms  that  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy 
dare  not  "  bring  the  laity  acquainted  with  such  docu- 
ments !"  Dr.  Van  D.,  indeed,  resolutely  affirms  that 
"the  pecidiariiies  of  the  Romish  system  icere  never 
heard  of  in  the  primitive  church  of  the  first  three  cen- 
turies." But  the  Romish  disputants  say  they  know  bet- 
ter !  Theirs  is  "the  church  of  thetirst  three  centuries;" 
for  truth,  they  argue,  is  always  the  same.  They  scout 
the  idea  that  papal  supremacy,  transubstantiation,  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass,  purgatory,  prayers  for  the  dead, 
invocation  of  the  saints,  and  the  whole  rabble  of  their 
superstitions,  cannot  be  proved  to  have  existed  until  three 
hundred  years  after  tlie  death  of  Christ.  When,  there- 
fore, the  Romanist  tells  High  Churchmen  that  for  base 
ends,  they  cautiously  shun  the  exposure  to  their  mem- 
bership of  the  testimony  of  "  the  ancient  liturgies  of  ih-e 
primitive  church  "  (of  coui-sc  "  the  church  of  the  first 
three  centuries  " )  nm\  the  works  of  the  early  ecclesiastical 
writers,"  we  thank  God  that  ne  have  no  need  of  auysuch 
interpreters,  infallible  or  otherwise,  to  decide  what  is  "  the 
law  of  the  Lord,  which  is  perfect,"  "a  laiap  to  our  feet 
and  a  light  to  our  i)ath."  "To  this  law  and  to  this  tes- 
timony— if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  light  in  them." 

4.  It  is  very  natural,  as  a  consequence  from  such  po- 
sitions as  those  of  Dr.  Van  D.  and  his  brethren,  that 
"the  right  of  private  judgment "  should  be  in  no  very 
good  odor  with  them.  After  reading  several  time?  and 
with  much  care,  what  is  said  in  these  "Seven  Sermons," 
we  are  by  no  means  certain  that  we  yet  know  what 
*  Difficulties  (.f  RoiiKun^in,  In-  F:\hi-r.  p.  12. 


"private  judgment"  is,  in  tlie  Higli  Church  system. 
"  Let  each  ex<imin.e  for  him-sclf,"  siiys  Dr.  Van  D.  But 
what  are  we  to  exainiae,  in  order  to  discover  the  true 
church?  He  answers,  "The  Scriptures  and  tlie  church 
of  the  first  three  centuries."  Again,  he  tells  us,  "  we 
must  seek  that  form  of  truth  which  C'iirist  and  his 
Apostles  taught  and  practised."  This  certainly  looks 
as  if  lie  meant  to  encourage  individual  inquiry,  and  that 
every  man  should,  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  with  all  the 
helps  within  his  reach,  especially  seeking  divine  aid, 
determine  what  "  Christ  and  his  Apostles  have  taught," 
"that  for  this  end  we  should  study  the  Scriptures."  But 
in  the  same  immediate  connexion  he  severely  denounces 
the  idea  "  that  every  man  is  to  go  to  the  Bible  and  con- 
struct his  own  church  and  religion,"  as  though  "  he 
were  possessed  of  infaUibility ! "  But  what  Protestant 
Christian  ever  made  any  such  ridiculous  pretension? 
He  has  much  to  say  about  "  rival  systems  of  man's  de- 
vice," and  warns  his  flock  against  giving  encouragement 
to  the  common  idea  that  "  it  matters  not  to  what  com- 
munion you  belong,"  as  though  this  absurd  and  impious 
denial  of  all  difl'erence  between  truth  and  error  were  a 
common  "  abuse  of  private  judgment "  among  those 
whom  he  calls  the  sects  !  Indeed  the  only  intelligible 
idea  of  "private  judgment"  derivable  from  Dr.  Van 
Deusau's  "Senunns"  appears  to  be  this:  Private 
judgment,  or  the  right  of  individual  inquiry,  is  a  noble 
and  inestimable  privilege,  if  you  only  privately  judge, 
as  we  High  Churchmen  do,  and  receive  our  system  as 
the  only  true  and  safe  one !  But  if  you  interpret  the 
Scriptures  differently,  if  you  are  led  to  believe  that  "  the 
three  first  centuries,"  their  "  liturgies  and  early  writers," 
contain  the  elements  and  seeds  of  popery,  or  if,  after 
inquiry,  you  repudiate  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  take 
up  with  some  one  of  the  "  sects,"  then  you  are  guilty  of 
a  most  dangerous  "abuse  of  private  judgment!" 

The  true  Protestant  doctrine  touching  this  right,  we 
conceive  not  to  be  "  that  opposite  opinions  may  both  be 
true,"  nor  that  truth  i-!..  i  - '  !^  iMi  enuallv 
go)d,  a-^  Di-.  V:i,n  D.  ■  ■   -        ■  .  '  .  ■  -or yet 

that  all  spiCuLitivc  vT,-,:  ;    u      -  j^:!/  /nt;  but 

this,  that  there  is  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ii'>  nkihh  body 


142 


High  Chukcu  Episcopacv. 


(as  Rome  protends)  to  whose  decrees  men  are  bound  to 
piihiuil  tlicir  fiinsciciitions  views  on  points  of  faith  and 
I'i  li:i(iiis  |ir;!<  ti'  ( .  " '  AVc  believe  that  "all  Scripture  is 
gik'i  ii  by  iij.-i)ira(i(in  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doc- 
trine, rcpi-oof,  iiistruction  in  rifrbteousness,  that  the  man 
of  God  may  be  jH'rfeet,  thorongbly  furnished  unto  all 
good  works."  This  is  Paul'.s  view  of  the  subject.  Dr. 
Van  I),  and  his  Higli  Cinuch  brethren  seem  to  think 
this  hazardous  ground.  They  propose  "the  church  of 
the  first  three  centuries  "  as  "  the  body  "  to  which  we 
must  submit  these  profitable  instructions  of  Scripture. 
But  what  is  the  verdict  of  that  ancient  "body?"  The 
Bishop  of  Aire  and  his  Romish  brethren  say  that  "the 
primitive  church  as  represented  by  her  early  writers,"  is 
so  obviously  in  favor  of  popery,  that  High  Church 
Episcopalians  are  driven  to  the  shameful  necessity  of 
concealing  their  testimony  in  order  to  spare  "their  own 
embarrassment,"  and  save  their  flocks  from  becoming 
papists !  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  recommend  Dr. 
Van  D.  to  adopt  the  following  conclusion  of  his  Episco- 
pal brother,  George  Stanley  Faber:  "  AVhen  a  writer 
(even  of  the  first  three  centuries)  propounds  a  doctrine 
which  rests  not  upon  the  firm  basis  of  Scripture,  I  would 
reject  it  as  a  commandment  of  men,"  &c.  t  This  is  the 
only  true  principle.  Test  all  other  writings  by  "the 
writings  of  God,"  "  for  they  are  profitable,  &c."  If  men 
differ  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  so  they  do 
about  the  writings  of  the  "first  three  centuries."  Not 
only  do  papists  differ  from  Episcopalians,  but  Episcopa- 
lians difler  irreconcilably  from  each  other,  on  this  very 
point.  "If  any  man,"  says  Jesus,  "will  do  my  will,  he 
SHALL  KNOW  of  the  doctrine  {my  doctrine,  v.  6.)  whether 
it  be  of  God,"  John  7:  17.  "I  will  not  scruple  to  as- 
sert," says  Bishop  Horsely,  oue  of  the  most  distinguished 
dignitaries  of  the  Episcojial  Church,  "  that  the  most 
illiterate  Christian,  if  he  can  but  read  his  English  Bible, 
and  will  take  the  pains  to  read  it  in  this  manner  (com- 
])aring  the  parallel  passages)  without  any  other  commen- 
tary than  what  the  different  parts  mutually  furnish  for 

*  See  tills  position  nobly  argued  and  maintained  in  Macaulay's 
"  Keview  of  Gladstone's  Churcli  and  State." 
f  Diff.  of  Eomtinlsm,  p.  63. 


fcjOKIFl'URE  iNTEltl'KKTci  lltiKLi'.  14o 


each  otlier,  will  not  only  attain  all  that  i)ractical  knowl- 
edge wliich  is  necessary  to  salvation,  but  will  become 
learned  iu  EVEKYrniNG  ri'latiiig  to  his  religion.  He 
may  safely  be  ignorant  of  all  ]thil(is(i[>liy  and  all  history 
V  ;s,  even  of  'the  tliree  hrst  centui-ii-s,' ;  which  he  does 
;  .t  find  in  the  saei'ed  books."  So  our  blessed  Lord,  in 
ivasoning  witli  the  yaddueees  on  the  subject  of  the  re- 
surrection, ajjpcals  to  the  ticripture  :  "As  touching  the 
de,id  that  they  rise,  it  aye  ye  not  read  in  the  books  of 
Moses?  *  *  *  Ye  do  therefore  greatly  err." 
Mark  12 :  26,  27.  And  iu  deciding  his  own  claims  to 
the  Messiahship,  he  says  to  the  Jews :  "  Search  the  Scrip- 
tures, *  *  *  *  for  they  are  they  that  testify  of  me." 
John  5  :  39.  "  Blessed  is  he  that  readefh,  and  they  that 
hear  the  words  of  this  prophecy,  and  keep  those  things 
which  are  written  thei'ein."  licv.  1  :  3. 

5.  Admitting  the  excellence  or  at  least  the  ]iractical 
use  of  this  High  Church  rule,  let  us  for  argument's  sake 
try  to  work  with  it.  "Inquire  lor  the  church  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  tirst  three  centuries."  "  Let  each  ex- 
amine for  himself."  But  here  arise  numerous  knotty 
points. 

If  the  divine  Author  of  the  New  Testament  intended 
that  we  should  interpret  it  by  the  uninspired  records  of 
"the  eliurch  of  the  iirst  three  centuries,"  is  it  not  strange 
that  alniost  the  only  genuine  uninspired  document  of 
the  supposed  purest  pei'iod  of  the  clnireh,  which  has 
been  preserved,  is  a  solitary  letter  of  Clement  of  Kome. 
It  is  addressed  to  the  church  of  Corinth  and  is  of  date 
about  A.  D.  96.  It  contains  some  very  good  advice, 
but  nothing  of  this  sort  which  in  substance  is  not  with 
equal  clearness  and  far  greater  authority  found  in  the 
New  Testament.  Of  the  value  of  this  epistle  as  an  in- 
terprdn-  of  Scripture,  we  may  form  some  idea  from  the 
fact  that,  with  all  })()ssible  gra,vity,  Clement  records  the 
ridiculous  story  of  "a  certain  iidnilous  bird  called  the 
jihcenix,"  of  wliich  he  minutely  details  the  most  mar- 
vellous legend."'    But  if  we  take  Clement's  account  of 

*0f  this  betrayal  of  u-e;ikncss  Milncv  says:  '■  His  luistakein 
applying  tlie  siory  ot  tlu-  i)h<;uiu.\-,  h:is  bucn,  1  tliiiik,  too  severely 
censured."  "That  Clemeut  believed  it,  is  no  proof  of  weakness 
of  judgment."    Indeed ! 


illUU  CilUUCil  EpiiCtji'ACY. 


the  state  of  religiou  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  it  will 
not  greatly  tend  to  reconcile  us  to  Dr.  Van  Deusea's 
method  of  iuturpretiag  the  Scriptures,  much  less  attach 
us  to  that  church  of  the  first  century  as  an  object  of  imi- 
tation in  establishing  truth,  morality  and  religiou  I 
"  Pride  and  a  schismatical  spirit,"  says  the  Episcopal 
Milner,  ■'  which  were  evils  particularly  Corinthian,  de- 
face the  agrooahle  picture."  Clement,  he  adds,  severe- 
ly rebukid  th.ii- " euvy,  strife,  dissension,  persecution, 
disorder,  war  and  desolation."  "Righteousness  and 
peace,"  says  Cleiueut,  "  are  far  from  you,  because  ye 
ALL  leave  tlie  fear  of  God;  aad  your  spiritual  sight  is 
become  too  dim  to  be  guided  by  the  faith  of  the  gospel." 
"  Ye  ALL  walk  too  much  according  to  your  own  evil 
lusts,  cherishing  a  malignant  spirit  of  envy."  Referring 
to  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  he  adds  :  Do 
take  up  tlie  writmgs  of  the  blessed  Apostle.  What  did 
he  say  to  you  in  the  beginning  of  the  gospel?  Trul_y, 
by  divine  inspiration  he  gave  you  directions  I"  "  These 
(the  evils  before  mentioned)  are  shameful  things,  breth- 
ren, very  shameful.  *  *  *  "pj^g  Qame  of  God  is 
blasphemed  through  your  folly." 

Thus  endeth  the  first  lesson,  which  is  concerning  "  the 
church  of  the  first  century."  If  we  cannot  understand 
the  inspired  records,  will  this  document  furnish  much  as- 
sistance in  proving  High  Churchism  ?  Indeed  in  read- 
ing this  epistle  of  Clement,  we  are  almost  tempted  to 
thiuk  we  have  by  some  mistake  taken  up  Dr.  Van  D's. 
"Seven  Sermons,"  and  opened  at  his  scathing  description 
of  the  evils  arising  from  "  the  variety  of  sects,  and  the 
workings  of  the  sect  spirit,"  as  they  everywhere  prevail, 
except  in  his  own  denomination.*  So  far  as  the  epistle 
of  Clement  weighs  one  way  or  the  other,  it  is  on  our  side. 
Mark  how  confidently  he  appeals  to  "  the  gospel"  as 
delivered  by  Paul — to  "the  uritings  which  he  jjenn'd  by 
inspiration."  Clement  never  seems  to  have  dreamed 
of  the  danger  of  such  exercise  of  "  private  judg- 
ment." More  than  this — he  uses  the  terms  bishop 
and  presbyter  interchangeably,  just  as  though  he  were  a 
*  Sermon  V,  pp.  92,  93,  94. 


The  Ei'iHTi.K  oy  ( 'lk.mknt. 


1-15 


Presbyteriau.  An<!  even  IMilner  speaks  of  him  (Clement) 
■  "tiie  vcnc-r;ible  jMfio'-  '  :)<if  lii^ho;;)  ol'  tl;e  cliurch  of 

•iue."  That  the  chur  • 'v  inui  hml  such  Imhops 
tlieir  owu  at  this  iXM-iod,  s;-.. m.-.  jioarly  ccrttiiu  from 
fact  that  more  tliau  lliirtii  years  previously,  Paul 

•vut    to    Ephesus    aii'l     ■ali.-d"    the    elders  'of  the 

iiii-eh,"  whom  he  afterwanlsslyleshishopsor  episkopous, 
a-  tie-  <}fc':  is,  "  who^n  the  iloly  Ghost  had  made."* 
If  tills  v.rr.-  true  of  Ephesus,  il,  was  doubtless  equally 
true  of  so  Lircat  a  cily  as  ('oi-intli. 

We  arrive  then  at  tlu'  ■  eoiieiusioiis  :  This  letter  of 
Clement  is  almosi  ihr  m/ii/  -■ciiuiMi-  prodie'tion  of  the 
companions  of  the  :;i;o.stles  whieh  has  eoiiie  down  to  us. 
Even  the  Episeopal  iSIilner  says  :  "  ^V'c;  have  no  ccr/exA/.s- 
tical  irork,  exclusive  of  tlie  Seriplures,  (>xeept  this  one, 
which  does  any  peculiar  honor  to  tiie  first  century. ''f 
We  thus  ne.rrow  Dr.  Van  D's.  rule  for  interpreting  the 
Scriptures,  fmni  "  !  lieclinreh  of  the  first  three  centuries". to 
"  the  church  of  tlu;  second  and  /hird  centuries  "  If  the 
churches  of  Corinth,  Rome.  Ephesus,  &c.,  were  first  or- 
ganized on  High  Church  princi[!h  s,  we  have  no  means 
of  ascei'taining  the  fact  except  the  Scriptures — and  of 
course  we  must  pass  over  the  first  one  hundred  years  of 
apostolic  purity  and  comedown  (o  the  second  ceiitur}',  in 
order  to  work  with  the  Pligh  Church  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion.   The  apostolic  age  says,  "It  is  not  in  me." 

6.  In  "  in!|uiring  for  the  cliurcli  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries,"  we  are  inimedniiely  bcst't  wiih  great  embar- 
rassments. There  are  indeed  a  number  of  writers  ;  but 
as  they  wrote  in  the  Greek  or  Latin  language,  few  persons 
can  read  them  except  in  a  translation.  Besicies,  being 
quite  voluminous,  Viordy  and  extravagant,  liow  shall 
"each  examine  for  himself?"  The  Scriptures  are  in 
everybody's  hand,  are  comparatively  small  in  bulk,  and 
can  be  diligently  studied,  and  eom))ared,  oiic  passage 
with  another.  But  who  shall  undertake  to  '■  CKamine" 
the  fifty  or  sixty  folios  of  the  fathers  ?    Especially,  who 

*Acts20.1T,  28. 

tVol.  I,  p.  76.  Tiie  work  of  TTerinas,  Milncr  thinks,  pr'hahly 
written  by  that  person,  l)at  of  infV-rinr  ni"vit,  nn'l  innvnrtby  (if 
rurllicr  iiotice. 


146 


High  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


of  the  great  mass  of  mankiud,  who  possess  but  little 
leisure  lor  such  investigations,  and  whose  learning  is 
necessarily  vi  i y  limiti'  l As  to  the  moral  and  relii;iou8 
character  of  tin-:  authur^,  tlie  Episcopal  Milner  candidly 
acknowledges  that  Iji  rorc  tiie  close  of  the  s2Cond  century, 
"  a  dark  shade  was  uuvelopinir  the  divine  glories  of 
primitive  Christianity  The  Spirit  of  God  was  grieved 
already  by  the  ambitious  intrusions  of  self-rigliteousuess, 
argumentative  refinements  and  pharisaic  pride."*  These 
are  the  men  who  are  to  teach  us  the  meaning  of  our 
Lord  and  his  inspired  apostles!  "The  mystery  of 
iniquity,"  says  Paul  the  apostle,  fifty  years  after  the 
crucifixion,  had  already  "begun  to  work,"t  and  soon 
developed  "  the  man  of  sin  and  son  of  perdition  in  all 
deeeivableness  of  unrighteousness,"  in  some  of  his  dark 
features.  But  lest  we  should  fall  under  a  similar  suspicion 
with  that  of  the  Romish  Bishop  of  Aire  about  Episco- 
palians, viz.,  of  being  afraid  of  the  testimony  of  these 
fathers,  let  us  examine  them. 

7.  About  ffteen  authors  of  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies, parts  of  whose  writings  remain  to  us,  and  most  of 
which  were  written  in  reply  to  heathen  objections,  or  in 
refutation  of  heresies  which  are  now  universally  consid- 
ered contemptible,  are  our  sole  dependence  in  judging 
of  the  views  of  the  church  of  tiiose  centuries.  There 
are  iii(li'!;il  a  very  few  l)rief  coufessious  by  Irena;us,  Ter- 
tullian  ami  Oi-l,L(eii,  butthey  are  chiefly  doctrinal,  and  as 
they  recite  almost  exclusively  the  great  fundamental 
truths  of  Christianity,  they  are  the  common  property  of 
Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians.  Of  course  they  decide 
nothing  in  regard  to  these  differences. 

Again  :  As  the  corruption  of  the  church  made  pro- 
gress towards  the  full  stature  of  "the  man  of  sin,"  the 
ruling  party  would  naturally  suppress  and  destroy  what- 
ever r,'(  Olds  stood  iu  their  way.  Tiierecau  be  no  doubt 
tliat  even  i,At^(;ic  councils  were  employed  in  this  expur- 
gation. Bishop  Stillinu'tleet  a^iinits  that  "the  general 
council  of  Ariiuiuuni,  consisting  of  about  six  hundred 
bishops,  decided  against  the  orthodox  faith."  And 

*Cent.  ir,  vol.  1,  p.  137. 
t  "2  TnfB^  2  ;  7. 


Earj,v  \VitiTi.\(is  (_'()[? i;ui'TEi).  147 


L.iihing  is  more  ftimiliar  to  church  history  than  tlie  de- 
I  isions  of  councils  anatheiiiatizinp:  books,  because!  they 
tan,i;ht  sentinu-nts  difiVrcnt  from  lln-ir  own.  Du  Pin,  a 
Koiiiariist  liisloi-ian,  conlcs^es  tliat  a  rnuncil  held  A.  D. 
■'^40,  pronounced  the  condemnation  of  Origen  ;  and  a 
Greek  treatise  of  Tertullian  on  baptism,  Pamelius  ad- 
mits to  have  been  probably  suppressed,  because  it  con- 
tained the  doctrine  "that  baptism  performed  by  heretics 
■was  null  and  void." 

The  remains  of  the  early  writers  are  admitted  by 
Romanists  themselves,  to  have  been  greatly  mutilated 
and  corrupted,  and  whole  works  have  been  forged  in 
their  names.  Thus  the  more  candid  of  the  papists  re- 
pudiate as  rank  forgeries  more  than  one  hundred  and 
eighty  treatises  professing  to  be  written  by  authors  of  the 
first  six  centuries.  And  Cave,  Du  Pin  and  others  have 
demonstrated  three  or  four  times  that  number  to  be 
either  shameless  fabrications  or  at  least  of  very  doubtful 
authority  !  That  these  corruptions  did  extend  even  to 
the  genuine  works  of  the  early  fathers,  is  proved  by 
Augustine  of  the  fourth  century.  In  speaking  of  this 
charge  brought  against  the  works  of  Cyprian,  he  says : 
"  The  integrity  and  knowledge  of  the  writings  of  any 
one  bishop,  however  illustrious,  could  not  be  preserved 
by  the  variety  of  languages  in  which  the  Scripture  is 
found  nor  by  the  order  and  succession  of  its  rehearsal  in 
the  church  ;  against  which,  however,  there  have  not 
been  wanting  tliose  who  have  forged  many  tkiugs 
under  the  names  of  Ihe  apodles."  Thus  also  a  work  of 
Basil  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  acknowledged  by  Bishops 
Jeremy  Taylor  and  Stillingfleet,  at  least  more  than  half 
of  the  whole,  or  the  last  fifteen  chapters,  to  be  a  forgery. 
Heretics  and  orthodox,  Greeks  and  Latins,  have  made 
these  charges  and  proved  them  true.  All  are  familiar 
with  the  long  and  fierce  controversy  between  East  and 
West  on  the  phrase //^t'ogufi  in  what  is  called  the  apostles' 
creed,  and  we  need  but  mention  the  Index  Expurgatorim 
of  Rome,  to  suggest  the  argus-eyed  vigilance  with  which 
for  ages  that  apostate  church  has  guarded  against  the 
circulation  of  errors,  which  she  imagined  she  found  in 
the  fathers.    Most  cordially  therefore  do  wc  adopt  the 


148 


High  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


conclusion  of  Mr.  Goode,  Episcopal  minister  of  London  : 
"  It  is  both  absurd  and  irreverent  to  the  divine  Author 
of  Scripture,  t(j  be  guided  l)y  an  account  of  those  doc- 
trines given  us  by  fallible  men,  instead  of  going  at  once 
to  the  divine  Word,  and  taking  our  views  from  thence." 
If  the  fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries  were 
originally  ever  so  correct,  clear  and  luminous  as  inter- 
preters of  Scripture,  we  can  have  no  certainty  that  we 
possess  their  uncorrupted  writings."  This  fact  may  per- 
haps suggest  some  apology  for  "  the  extraordinary  facil- 
ity with  which  the  best  of  thein  seem  to  have  admitted 
the  most  monstrous  extravagancies  and  the  most  silly 
puerilities.  A  very  moderate  course  of  reading  in  pa- 
tristic allegories,  conceits,  visions,  legends,  miracles  and 
superstitions  of  Barnabas,  Hermas,  Origen  and  Tertul- 
lian,  &c.,  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  reclaim  any  one  of 
sane  mind  from  the  abasement  of  setting  them  up  as 
guides." 

"  The  interval  between  the  Scriptures  and  the  very 
best  of  the  fathers,  is  so  immense,  that  not  a  few  have 
testified  that  it  forms  to  them  the  most  convincing  proof 
of  the  inspired  origin  of  the  former — it  being  in  their 
judgment  absurd  to  suppose  that  any  man,  much  less  a 
number  of  men,  could  have  composed  such  a  volume  as 
the  Bible,  in  an  age  in  which  their  immediate  successors, 
many  of  them  possessing  undoubted  genius  and  erudi- 
tion, and  having  the  advantage  of  their  light  to  walk 
by,  f  ould  fall  into  puerilities  so  gross  and  errors  so  mon- 
strous. We  could  sooner  believe  that  Jacob  Bcehmen 
could  have  composed  the  Novum  Organum,  or  Thomas 
Sternhold  the  Paradise  Lost."  Such  are  the  men  to 
whom  we  are  referred  to  tell  us  how  to  interpret  the 
writings  of  God — "  a  set  of  men  whose  pages  abound 
with  manifest  marks  of  error,  absurdity  and  fantastic 
raving."* 

"  The  old  Christian  fiithers  received  from  the  Jewish 
rabbins  the  practice  of  mystical  exposition.  Origen 
denied  even  the  literal  truth  of  history.  He  held  that 
it  was  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  world  was  created  in 

*  Piisevism  and  the  Oxford  School.    Edinb.  Rev.,  July,  1843. 


Strange  Erroes  of  the  Fathers.  149 


;•  ix  days ;  the  creation  signified  the  renovation  of  the 
soul,  and  the  six  days  that  it  was  gradual.  Israel  in 
Egypt  was  the  soul  living  in  error,  and  the  seven  plagues 
its  purgations  from  various  evil  habits,  the  frogs  denot- 
ing loquacity,  the  flies  carnal  appetites,  the  boils  pride 
and  arrogance."* 

8.  But  there  is  much  that  is  worse  than  this.  In  the 
language  of  Mr.  Taylor  :  "we  pronounoe  these  fathers 
to  have  grossly  perverted  the  gospel,  and  to  be  amongst 
the  very  worst  guides  which  the  church  can  follow."! 

(1.)  Origen,  who  was  a  Universalist,  in  his  commen- 
tary on  1  John  1 :  3,  says,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  was  made 
by  the  Logos,"  and  repeats  the  statement.  So  says  the 
Episcopal  Goode. 

(2.)  TertuUian,  says  the  same  authority,  "  taught  that 
the  Son  was  a  derivation  from  the  whole  substance  of  the 
Father,"  and  "  that  there  was  a  time  when  there  was  no 
Son  of  God."  He  also  interprets  the  "  two_sparrows" 
(Matt.  10 :  29)  of  the  soul  and  body. 

(3.)  Mr.  Goode  affirms  that  the  fathers  of  the  fourth 
century  had  no  scruples  in  calling  in  question  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  earlier  tathers,  such  as  ( )rigen,  and  Dyony- 
sius  of  Alexandria.  The  latter  was  charged  with 
"numbering  the  Holy  Spirit  with  inferior  beings,  with 
created  nature,  &c."  Jerome  also  says  that  "  Lactantius 
altogether  denied  the  entity  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  "The 
faith,"  he  adds,  "  is  delivered  by  these  authors,  most  im- 
perfectly and  erroneously,  and  almost  always  mixed  up 
with  various  strange  notions  and  conceits."^ 

(4.)  The  Bishop  of  Down  and  Connor§  tells  us  that 
the  "practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  had  its  origin  in 
the  curiosities  of  the  second  century,  but  with  no  other 
authority  than  custom."  He  quotes  Tertullian  as  testi- 
fying also,  that  in  his  day  "  not  a  shoe  could  be  put  on 
without  the  sign  of  the  cross."  It  was  the  age  of  super- 
stition. 

(5.)  Irenseus,  who  says  he  had  seen  Polycarp,  the  dis- 

*  McClelland  on  the  Canon,  p.  132. 
t  Ancient  Christianity. 
t  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  1,  p.  220-21. 
?  See  Bricknell,  p.  219. 

11 


150  High  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


ciple  of  the  Apostle  John,  maintains  in  his  writings  that 
our  blessed  'Lord  lived  to  be  an  old  man,  and  tbat  his 
public  ministry  embraced  at  least  ten  years!  Yet  he 
was  one  of  the  wisest  and  best  of  the  fathers — but  cer- 
tainly no  very  safe  guide  in  interpreting  Scripture. 

9.  But  if  "the  church  of  the  second  and  third  centuries" 
is  so  indispensable  an  interpreter  of  Scripture,  it  may  be 
well  to  adduce  a  few  further  illustrations  in  order  to 
diffuse  so  brilliant  a  light. 

"The  ass  and  colt"  (.Matt.  21 :  2),  "for  which  Christ 
sent  his  disciples,  Justin  and  others  interpret  severally 
of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers:  Origen,  however, 
rather  expounds  them  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ments."* Well  might  Jerome  say,  "  that  it  was  more 
trouble  to  understand  such  expositors  well  than  the  very 
texts  they  undertook  to  explain."  And  this  father,  one 
of  the  most  eminent  of  all,  repeatedly  tells  us  that  "  his 
own  commentaries  are  interwoven  with  the  expositions 
of  Origen  and  others,  who  were  in  his  day  (fourth  cen- 
tury) evil  spoken  of  as  men  who  had  presumptuously 
foisted  upon  the  world  their  own  private  opinions,  fash- 
ioning (as  he  expresses  it)  the  mysteries  of  the  church 
out  of  their  own  private  fancies."  Jerome  did  not  re- 
gard these  early  writers  as  very  reliable  interpreters  of 
Scripture.  This  same  father,  however,  interprets  Paul's 
rebuke  of  Peter,  not  as  though  Paul  really  believed 
Peter  blame-worthy,  but  only  in  pretence,  to  save  ap- 
pearances If  And  as  further  examples  of  such  pious 
fraud,  he  adduces  the  cases  of  Origen  of  the  third  cen- 
tury and  others,  who,  he  says,  iu  writing  against  the 
infidel  scoffers  Celsus  and  Porphyry,  employed  "  slippery 
problems  and  argiunents,"  "  not  that  which  they  be- 
lieved, but  that  which  was  most  necessary  to  be  said." 
And  he  seems  to  include  in  this  condemnation  Tertul- 
lian,  Cyprian  and  others.";};  Such  is  Jerome's  judg- 
ment concerning  some  of  the  wisest  and  best  of  Dr. 
Van  Deusen's  interpreters  of  Scripture  and  of  "  the  church 

*  Edinburgh  Eev.,  Art.  Pusevism,  July,  1843. 
t  It  was  a  feigned  business,  purposely  acted  between  Peter  and 
Paul. 

JDaille,  pp.  150,  151. 


Bright  Lights  of  Antiquity.  151 


of  the  first  three  centuries."  Such  were  the  men  who, 
as  Mosheim  says,  "  deemed  it  not  only  lawful  but  com- 
mendable, to  deceive  and  lie  for  the  sake  of  what  they 
considered  truth  and  piety." 

Cj'priau  held  the  opinion  that  "without  baptism  and 
the  communion  of  the  Lord's  table,  no  man  can  come 
unto  salvation  or  eternal  life."  And  Ignatius,  in  speak- 
ing of  fasting,  said:  "  Whosoever  fasts  upon  the  Lord's 
day,  or  upon  any  Saturday,  he  is  a  murderer  of  Christ."1[ 
Well  might  Augustine,  of  the  fourth  century,  say  to 
Jerome:  "I  have  learned  to  pay  to  those  books  of 
Scripture  alone,  now  called  canonical,  such  reverence 
and  honor  as  to  believe  steadfastly  that  none  of  their  au- 
thors ever  committed  any  error  in  writing  them."  "As 
for  all  other  n-riters,"  he  adds,  "  I  do  not  instantly  con- 
clude that  whatever  I  find  is  true,  except  they  convince 
me  either  out  of  the  said  canonical  books  or  by  some 
probable  reason."  "  Believe  me  not,"  says  Cyril,  "  in 
whatsoever  I  shall  speak,  unless  thou  fiud  the  same 
things  demonstrated  out  of  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

Justin  Martyr,  in  one  of  his  apologies,  says  that  David 
lived  fifteen  hundred  years  before  tiie  crucifixion,  which 
is  a  mistake  of  near  five  hundred  years,  and  the  same 
early  father  states  that  Ptolemy,  king  of  Egypt,  sent 
ambassadoi's  to  Herod,  king  of  Judea,  in  relation  to  the 
matter  of  tlie  Septuagint  translation  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
which  is  a  mistake  not  only  of  the  person  to  whom  the 
embassy  was  sent,  but  also  of  more  than  two  hundred 
and  forty  years  in  the  time  of  the  transaction.  These 
early  fathers  interpret  the  Gihon,  one  of  the  rivers  of 
Paradise,  to  be  the  Nile.  Tertullian  also  maintains  that 
plants  have  feeling  and  understanding.  Ireujeus  says 
the  name  Jesus  is  composed  of  two  letters  and  a  half, 
and  adds  that  in  the  ancient  Hebrew  it  signifies  heaven. 
As  to  the  ridiculous  allegorical  fancies  of  Tertullian, 
Jerome  often  complains  of  his  wresting  the  text,  and 
making  the  true  sense  of  Scripture  evaporate  into 
nothing. 

Justin  Martyr,  moreover,  was  a  millenarian.  He 
fDaille,  pp.  170,  173. 


152  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


taught  that  after  the  resurrection  of  the  saints,  they 
would  live  and  reign  one  thousand  years  in  the  city  of 
Jerusalem,  which  would  he  rebuilt,  enriched  and  en- 
larged, as  Ezekiel  and  Isaiah  had  foretold !  The  same 
father,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Tryjiho  the  Jew,  seems  to 
deny  that  the  essence  of  God  is  infinite,  or  that  he  Is 


that  it  was  not  the  Father  who  rained  fire  and  brim- 
stone upon  Sodom,  because  he  could  not  have  been  then 
in  heaven !  Justin  also,  in  explaining  the  reason  why 
our  blessed  Lord  commended  his  spirit  to  God,  says  it 
was  because  all  the  souls  of  the  departed  saints  and 
prophets  had  previously  fallen  under  the  power  of  evil 
spirits,  such  as  the  spirit  of  Python.  Irenjeus  teaches 
that  Christ  was  more  than  forty  years  old  at  his  death, 
and  that  he  did  not  at  all  know  when  the  day  of  judg- 
ment should  be!  Origen,  in  very  numerous  passages, 
teaches  that  the  pains  of  hell  are  designed  only  to  purify, ' 
and  consequently  are  not  eternal,  but  will  cease  when 
the  souls  of  the  damned  are  thoroughly  cleansed  by  the 
fire !  And  both  he  and  Justin  Martyr  teach  that  the 
angels  fell  in  love  with  the  first  women,  and  they  were 
led  to  reveal  to  the  fair  ones  many  secrets  they  ought  to 
have  concealed  !*  TertuUian  not  only  attributes  to  the 
divine  Spirit  like  passions  with  us,  as  anger,  hatred, 
grief,  but  says  he  does  not  believe  "  there  is  any  substance 
which  is  not  corporeal,  nor  that  any  man  will  deny  that 
God  is  a  body."  Cyprian  held  to  the  necessity  of  ad- 
ministering the  Lord's  supper  to  infants,  supporting  this 
fancy  by  the  text,  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son 
of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you." 

Origen,  of  the  third  century,  taught  that  divine  provi- 
dence extends  only  to  universal  causes,  affirming  that  God 
has  committed  the  care  of  particular  things  to  the  angels. 
And  J ustin  Martyr,  Irenreus  and  TertuUian,  all  held  to 
a  sort  of  material  heaven  in  this  world,  promising  to 

*  TertuUian  also  says  that  virgins  should  wear  veils,  because 
"it  is  necessary  that  so  dangerous  a  fice  should  be  veiled,  which 
had  scandalized  even  Heaven  itself  I"  Origen  al?o  taught  the 
pre-existence  of  human  souls,  and  that  the  stars  are  animated 
beings. 


omnipresent.    For  this  reason 


Patristic  Puddles. 


153 


the  faithful  the  delights  and  pleasures  of  a  thousand 
years,  the  diaraoads  aud  sapphires  of  au  earthly  Jerusa- 
lem, &c.,  a  fancy  which  Jerome  and  others  of  a  later 
period  pronounced  fit  to  entertain  only  little  children 
and  such  like.  From  such  examples  as  these,  we  may 
well  adopt  the  language  of  Pearson,  Dean  of  Salisbury, 
England,  in  speaking  of  the  "ancient  fathers :"  "  Truth 
compels  me  to  say  that  their  piety  was  too  often  alloyed 
by  superstition,  and  with  some  exceptions,  their  learning 
was  neither  accurate  nor  extensive.  Their  reasonings 
were  often  weak  and  inconclusive,  their  interpretations 
of  Scripture  fanciful  aud  unsatisfactory.  *  *  *  * 
Consequently,  it  is  vain  to  look  up  to  them  as  certain 
guides  in  theology,  or  as  judicious  and  safe  expounders 
of  Holy  Writ."  *  "  To  the  testimony  of  Scripture,"  adds 
Musgrave,  Bishop  of  Hereford,  "and  to  that  alone,  the  fa- 
thers were  themselves  in  constant  habit  of  appealing  for 
decision  of  controversy."  "In  disputing  with  heretics  they 
were  often  hasty  and  wrong.  They  frequently  contradict 
themselves,  or  each  other,  and  when  supposed  to  express 
the  sentiments  of  the  church,  are  but  delivering  their 
OWN."t  Well  might  the  "Homily  on  reading  Holy 
Scripture"  exhort:  "Let  us  diligently  search  for  the 
well  of  life  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  not  run 
to  the  stinking  puddles  of  men's  traditions."  "  The  drunk- 
en Helots  never  taught  the  Spartans  a  more  wholesome 
lesson  of  temperance  than  the  inimitable  antics  of  these 
holy  men  teach  the  present  age  the  folly  of  deferring  to 
them  as  our  spiritual  guides."  J  It  is  far  more  easy  on 
such  authority  to  establish,  for  example,  the  apostolic 
origin  of  clerical  celibacy,  than  to  prove  High  Church 
Episcopacy. 

Our  Saviour  says,  "  Swear  not  at  all,"  referring  doubt- 
less to  profaueuess  in  conversation.  But  Mr.  Goode  has 
demonstrated  that  Irenieus,  Justin  Martyr,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Cyprian,  Origen,  Lactantius,  and  many 
other  fathers,  interpret  the  passage  in  the  Quaker  seuse, 
viz.,  to  forbid  the  use  of  the  oath  in  courts  of  law. 

*See  his  Chrirge,  1839. 
t  Charge,  142. 

1  Edinb.  Rev.,  Art.  Pussyism,  1S43 


154  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


Tertullian  says  :  "  We  account  it  a  crime  to  kneel  at 
prmjer  on  a  Sunday."  Justin  Martyr  quotes  the  blessed 
Irenseus,  Martyr  and  Bishop  of  Lyons,  as  saying  "  this 
custom  commenced /rom  apostolical  times,"  i.e.  "the  cus- 
tom of  standing  in  prayer  on  Sundays."  So  the  learned 
prelatist  Bingham  has  asserted  it  to  be  "  beyond  dis- 
pute," that  infant  communion  was  the  practice  of  the 
church  for  many  ages."  And  Bishop  Coxe,  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  says,  "  that  in  a  little  work  by  a  Dr. 
Ullathorne,  a  Romish  priest,  he  teaches  that  there  is  an 
unbroken  chain  of  fathers  for  the  immaculate  conception  !"* 
"  Stinking  jjuddles,"  indeed  !  Papist  and  High  Church 
can  prove  almost  any  monstrous  absurdity  from  "  the 
fathers,"  at  least  to  their  own  satisfaction.  Yet,  these 
were  the  leaders  and  oracles  of  "  the  church  of  the  three 
first  centuries  !"  Well  did  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor  say  : 
"The  early  Christian  doctors  were  just  such  as  one 
might  expect  to  find  in  those  who  were  looking  onward 
towards  that  deep  night  of  superstition  which  covered  Eu- 
rope during  the  middle  ages;"  in  other  words,  they  early 
began  to  verge  towards  the  great  apostasy  of  Eome  ;  and 
so  the  spirit  of  prophecy  had  foretold  of  the  mystery  of 
iniquity,  which  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  "  did  already 
work." 

Let  these  illustrations  suffice  to  prove  how  reliable 
"  these  fathers  "  are  in  regard  to  the  true  doctrines  and 
usages  of  the  Christian  religion.  "  The  Christian 
■world  REPOSED,"  we  are  told,  "for  at  Icjist  three  unbroken 
centuries,  under  the  undisjiuted  watch  and  rule  of  Epis- 
copacy." f  "  But  now,"  adds  the  §ame  author,  "look  over 
the  land  and  behold  the  multitude  of  sects,"  "  apostate 
sects!"  "See  thelMethodist  Episcopal  sect,  Pi-esbyterian 
Old  School,  and  all  the  et  ceieras,  down  to  Mormonism." 
But  suppose  we  serve  this  person  with  a  dose  of  his  own 
prescription.  Who  would  imagine  that  while  "the 
Christian  world  was  repomng,"  as  he  hath  it,  "  for  three 
unbroken  centuries,  &c.,"  the  "  apostate  sects"  were  such 
as  these:  Gnostics,  Nicolaitaus,  Corinthians,  Nazarenes, 
Ebiouites,  Ecclectics,  Moutauists,  Ecclesaites,  Saturni- 

*  Criterion,  p.  115. 

t  Clergyman  Looking,  &c.,  p.  343. 


No  Unanisious  Consent.  155 


uians,  Valeutiniaus,  Monarchiaus,  Patropassians,  Millen- 
arians,  Maniclieans,  Noetiaus,  Sabellians,  Novatians, 
&c.*  Certainly  tlie  repose  of  the  church  must  have 
been  a  very  deep  sleep,  if  the  clashiug  of  all  these  here- 
sies in  her  ears  did  not  disturb  the  Episcopacy!  No 
doubt  the  iiilidels  and  scoffers  of  tiiat  period  made 
themselves  merry  over  "the  sects,"  just  as  High  Church- 
meu  and  Papists  do  at  the  present  day  ;  and  with  about 
equal  reason.  Even  Episcopacy,  that  grand  panacea 
for  all  the  ills  the  church  is  heir  to,  did  not  avail  to 
prevent  these  disorders ! 

"  To  set  the  fathers  up  as  guides  must  appear  to  every 
unprejudiced  mind  the  most  extraordinary  fatuity." 
The  Greeks  associated  insanity  with  inspiration,  and  the 
Mohammedans  worship  as  saints  those  who  are  out  of 
their  senses :  on  something  of  the  same  principle  cer- 
tain men  regard  with  profound  reverence  the  authority 
of  the  fathers  as  expositors  of  Scriptui-e."  "  Popery  props 
up  her  superstitions  by  what  she  calls  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  fathers."  But  High  Churchmen  have  not 
yet  reached  that  ridiculous  extreme  of  fatuity.  Most 
of  them  repudiate  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV,  in  which 
the  Papist  promises  "  never  to  take  or  interpret  the 
Scriptures  otherwise  than  b}'  such  unanimous  consent." 

*  We  have  named  only  seventeen — biU  the  Episcopal  Dr.  Hook, 
in  his  Church  Dictionary,  enumerates  tiventij-scven  disJtinct  liei'e- 
siea  in  "  the  first  three  centuries."    Art.  Heresy. 


15G 


High  Chukch  Episcopacy. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

DIFFICULTIES  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE 
FATHERS. 

In  the  progress  of  our  inquiry  into  "the  church  of 
the  first  three  centuries"  (in  obedience  to  the  counsel, 
"Let  each  examine  for.  himself"),  enough  has  been  said, 
if  we  mistake  not,  to  satisfy  every  intelligent  reader  of 
the  exceeding  difficulty  of  proving  High  Churchism 
from  such  sources — perhaps  we  should  say,  the  utter  im- 
possibility. It  may  be  replied,  however,  that  though 
these  writers  of  the  first  centuries  are  admitted  to  have 
been  grossly  in  error  in  many  important  particulars,  and 
as  interpreters  of  Scripture  to  be  blind  guides,  still  as 
witnesses  of  facts — for  example,  of  the  early  existence  of 
the  principles  of  High  Church  Episcopacy,  and  the  ac- 
tive operation  of  such  principles  generally  throughout 
the  church,  these  primitive  fathers  must  be  received 
with  great  reverence,  and  their  evidence  as  worthy  of 
all  acceptation.  If  they  testify,  as  High  Church  Episco- 
palians affirm,  to  the  universal  prevalence  and  appropri- 
ate functions  of  the  "  three  orders  of  the  clergy"  in  the 
ages  immediately  succeeding  that  of  the  Apostles  ;  and 
if  they  agree  further  that  this  sort  of  exclusive  Episco- 
pacy was  delivered  to  them  directly  as  established  by 
those  holy  meu,  the  immediate  followers  of  our  Lord — 
surely  the  testimony  of  these  fathers  to  such  facts  mast 
carry  with  it  great  weight,  yea,  amount  almost  to  a  de- 
monstration of  the  divine  origin  of  the  High  Church 
system.  We  have  thus  stated  the  case  fairly  ;  and  if  it 
could  be  clearly  made  out,  we  concede  that  it  would 
present  a  very  plausible  lace.    Let  us  examine  it. 

I.  It  is  of  great  importance  at  the  outset,  to  ascertain 
accurately  what  are  the  precise  principles  whose  univer- 
sal prevalence  in  the  church  is  claimed  as  proved  by  the 
testimony  of  the  fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries.  They 
are  these : 


High  Church  Principles. 


157 


1.  The  bishops  of  the  primitive  church  were  a  differ- 
ent order  of  clergy  from  presbyters;  and  superior  to 
them. 

2.  That  the  primitive  bishop,  when  he  assumed  his 
office,  was  set  apart  to  it  with  a  new  and  special  ordina- 
tion. 

3.  That  every  such  bishop  was  set  over  a  number  of 
congregations  or  churches,  with  their  pastors  ;  and  over 
tliese  lie  exercised  govcniment,  such,  for  example,  as 
bishops  of  our  day  chiiin  over  their  extended  dioceses. 

4.  That  such  bishojjs,  and  fliey  alone,  possessed  the  right 
to  ordain  other  ministers  of  tlie  gospel.  That  this  sort 
of  Episcopacy  was  viewed  by  the;  whole  church  as  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  and  established  by  the  Apostles.* 

5.  That  those  are  "  essential,  divine  relations,"  and 
where  they  exist,  and  there  alone,  are  found  "  the  com- 
munion and  fellowsliip  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles" — 
without  which,  say  many  High  Churchmen,  we  cannot 
"  gain  the  divine  reconciliation,  peace  of  mind,  triumph 
in  death  and  bliss  in  eternity, "f — all  other  so-called 
churches  being  mere  "sects,"  "human  organizations," 
which  we  are  bound  to  reject.  And  for  these,  except 
in  cases  of  unavoidable  ignorance,  are  reserved  only 
"  uncovenanted  mercies,"  or  as  Bishop  Mcllvaine  right- 
ly interprets,  "  no  mercies  at  all." 

These  "  five  points,"  especially  the  first  four,  are  dis- 
tinctive principles  of  High  Churehism — and  if  the  early 
fathers  bear  witness  to  the  universal  prevalence  of  that 
system,  they  can  be  shown  to  testify  to  these  principles 
as  taught  in  the  Scriptures  and  generally  received  in  the 
churches.  Let  the  reader  keep  this  in  mind.  Some, 
indeed,  who  are  called  High  Church,  do  not  teach  ex- 
clusive salvation  for  such  Episcopalians,  but  many  do. 

II.  It  is  conceded  by  the  most  learned  prelatists,  that 
at  a  very  early  period  a  great  change  was  introduced  in 
the  style  and  titles  which  the  New  Testament  adopts  in 
speaking  of  the  ministry.  "  The  name  '  bishop,'  "  says 
Dr.  Onderdonk,  "which  now  designates  the  highest 
grade  of  the  ministry,  is  not  appropriated  to  that  ofiice  in 
Scripture.     That  name  is  there  given  to  presbyters." 

^See  Dr.  Miller's  Letters. 

t  Cliristiaiiity  in  Rpp\il).,  ]>\i.  2.5,  2(i. 


158 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Again :  "  It  was  after  the  apostolic  age  that  the  name 
'  bishop '  was  taken  from  the  second  order  and  appro- 
priated to  the  first."*  Again  :  "  When  we  find  in  the 
New  Testament  the  name  '  bisliop,'  we  must  regard  it  as 
meaning  the  bishop  of  a  pai  ish  (pastor  of  a  church)  or 
a  jorasbyter."  Again,  says  another  decided  High 
Churchman  :  "  Tliat  ])rcsbytcr  and  bishop  (in  the  New 
Testament)  are  convertible  terms,  our  measure  of  learu- 
il'x  -  not  permit  us  to  debatc."f  The  New  Testament 
pi("sl)yl(  r  is  therefore  the  scriptural  bishop,  and  High 
Cluirciiism  is  confessedly  guilty  of  perverting,  in  her 
forms  of  ordination,  tlie  use  of  the  term  as  employed  by 
inspired  men.  It  follows  also  that  Presbyterians  in  styl- 
ing each  pastor  "  a  bisliop,"  adhere  closely  to  the  in- 
spired terminology.  Again  :  "After  the  apostolic  age" — 
how  soon  or  how  long  after  the  death  of  the  last  apostle 
we  are  not  told— the  term  "  hishop,"  which  inspiratiou 
had  given  to  the  i)rt'<i)yt  r-pastors,  was  appropriated 
and  confined  exclusively  to  a  certain  small  class  of  pres- 
byters, who  were  first  re-ordained  in  order  to  qualify 
them  to  be  bishops,  and  to  govern  extensive  dioceses  of 
many  scores  of  congregations  and  pastors,  j^nd  the 
autliority  for  this  great  innovation  is  Theodoret,  of  the 
fifth  century!  He  was  made  Bishop  of  Cyrus,  A.  D. 
420,  a  period  when  "the  man  of  sin"  had  taken  large 
strides  towards  supreme  domination.  Prelacy  was  wide- 
spread, and  Popish  corruptions  were  most  abundant. 
Even  the  Episcopal  historian  Milner  says  of  Theodoret : 
"  He  surpassed  all  men  in  admiration  of  monastic  in- 
stitutions, and  was  credulous  beyond  measure  in  subjects 
of  that   nature."!     The  probability  is,  that  he  was 

*  Episcop.  Tested  by  Scripture,  pp.  18,  19. 

t  Presb.* Clergyman  Looking  for  the  Church,  p.  373. 

j  Hist.  Cent.  it.  ^It  is  curious  to  observe  that  Bishop  Onder- 
donk  in  referring  to  Theodoret,  merely  calls  liim  "  one  of  the 
fathers" — but  whether  he  livid  in  the  second  or  tenth  century  he 
saith  not.  "The  Clergyman  Looking  for  the  Church,"  however, 
says:  "  Theotloret  llveil  in  the  fourth  century."  The  fact  is,  he 
was  born  at  Antioeh,  .A..  D.  386.  So  that  this  "one  of  the  fathers" 
was  just  14  years  old  when  the  fifth  century  commenced !  A 
venerable  father  of  the  fourth  century  !  Yet  this  "  Clergyman 
Looking  "  has  much  to  say  about  the  "  evasions,"  "  .Jesuitism," 
&c.,  of  the  late  Dr.  Miller  and  otiiers  ! 


Many  Early  Superstitions. 


159 


equally  "  credulous  "  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  early 
existence  of  "three  orders,"  &c. 

But  we  do  not  need  the  testimony  of  a  monkish  bishop 
of  the  fifth  century  to  i>rove  that  at  a  very  early  period 
there  were  great  departures  from  the  inspired  simplicity 
of  the  gospel.  "A  gloomy  cloud,"  says  Milner,  "  hung 
over  the  conclusion  of  the  first  century;"  and  before  the 
close  of  the  second,  he  tells  us  of  the  introduction  of 
*'  self-righteousness  and  superstition,  obscuring  men's 
views  of  the  faith  of  Christ  and  darkening  the  whole 
face  of  Christianity " — "  fictitious  holiness  disguised 
under  the  appearance  of  eminent  sanctity  " — "  bodily 
austerities  " — "self-righteous  pretensions,  faith  in  Christ 
miserably  superseded  by  ceremonies  and  superstitions  !" 
Well  might  he  add,  "a  dark  shade  is  enveloping  the 
divine  glories  of  religion."  This  was  a  fruitful  soil  for 
the  production  of  the  temper  of  "Diotrephes,  who  loved 
to  have  the  pre-eminence."  3  John,  9.  "  Pharisaic 
pride,"  he  tells  us,  "was  busy;"  and  to  the  aspiring  minds 
of  ambitious  presbyters,  the  simple  style  of  God's  in- 
spired word  soon  became  insipid.  They  felt  themselves 
to  be  far  superior,  it  may  be,  to  many  of  their  fel- 
low ministers  in  talents,  learning,  eloquence,  social 
position,  jjersonal  popularity,  &c.  Hence  to  be  simple 
presbyter-pastors  in  common  with  others,  was  intoler- 
able. The  indications  of  a  change  from  scriptural 
parity — a  disuse  of  "  bishop  "  and  "presbyter  "  as  con- 
vertible terms,  soon  make  their  appearance  among  the 
fragments  of  the  church  records.  This  spirit  would 
naturally  develop  itself  earliest  and  in  greatest  vigor 
in  the  populous  cities,  among  their  large  and  wealthy 
churches.  Their  pastors  soon  learned  how  very  pleasant 
it  was  from  being  the  plain  and  usei'ul  president  or 
moderator  of  a  presbytery  to  be  greeted  in  the  market 
and  other  places  of  public  resort,  as  "bishop  "  this  and 
"  bishop  "  that.  "  In  vain,"  says  Milner,  "  will  almost 
any  modern  church  whatever  (of  course  including  his 
own)  set  up  a  claim  to  exact  resemblance."  "  At  first, 
and  for  some  time,  church  governors  were  only  of  two 
ranks,  presbyters  and  deacons,  as  at  Philippi  and  Eph- 
esus ;  and  the  term  bishop  was  confounded  with  that 


160  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


of  presbyter.  The  church  of  Corinth  coatinued  long  in 
this  state,  so  far  as  one  may  judge  by  Clement's  epis- 
tle."* But  this  scriptura,l  and  apostolic  mode  of  gov- 
erning the  church  by  two  ranks  or  orders,  presbyters 
and  deacons,  the  former  class  (presbyters)  often  styled 
"  bishops,"  soon  yielded  to  the  development  of  a  very 
different  spirit— a  spirit  which  rested  not  until  "  the 
Bishop  of  Rome"  claimed  as  his  diocese  the  whole  of 
the  Christian  world,  and  the  whole  hierarchy  of  the 
"  man  of  sin,"  with  the  vast  mummery  of  Popish  super- 
stition and  blasphemous  fable,  was  securely  established. 

Even  in  the  third  century,  the  learned  historian 
Milner  concedes  that  "  the  extent  of  a  bishop's  diocese 
was  called  paroikia  (a  parish).  Some  of  these  dioce-ses 
had  a  greater,  others  a  less  number  of  cliurches.  "  The 
practice  (of  the  people  electing  their  bishops)  continued 
during  at  least  the  three  first  centuries.|  On  the  other 
hand,  I  do  not  find  that  the  people  had  any  power  in 
deposing  a  bishop."  "  To  me,"  adds  Jlilner,  "it  seems  an 
unhappy  prejudice  (observe,  "  a  prejudice  !")  to  look  on 
any  one  of  the  forms  of  church  government  as  of  divine 
RIGHT."  "  The  pastoral  character  of  bishops  (in  the 
primitive  churches),  together  with  the  smallness  of  their 
dioceses,  always  adapted  to  pastoral  inspection,  made 
them  more  similar  to  the  Presbyterian  hierarchy."!  This 
is  the  candid  testimony  of  a  learned  Episcopal  historian, 
who  "inquired  for  tlie  church  of  the  first  three  centuries," 
largely  quoting  the  fathers  as  witnesses  to  existing  facts 
agreeably  to  the  rule  of  "  the  Rector."  And  in  the 
third  century,  he  adduces  what  he  calls  "  a  most  strik- 
ing proof  that  the  ideas  of  episcopacy  were  too  lofty, 
and  that  they  had  insensibly  grown  with  the  gradual  in- 
crease of  superstition."^  Episcopacy  and  sup^rstitioa,  Mil- 
ner discovers',  had  grown  together  in  intimate  fellowship, 
so  that  already  in  the  third  century  he  tells  us  bishops 
were  beginning  tobe  considered  in  the  same  light  as  apos- 

*Cent.  II,  chap.  1. 

f  Did  the  people  elect  the  three  bishops  of  Pennsylvania,  or  any 
other  of  the  bishops  in  this  country  ? 
X  Cent.  Ill,  chap.  14. 
?  Ibid.,  chap.  13. 


Inflated  Style  of  the  Fathers.  IGl 


ties !"  Well  might  he  denounce  this  "  comparison  as 
very  unseemly  !"' 

III.  In  conducting  the  inquiry  whether  the  modern 
Episcopal  organization  is  identical  in  form  with  that  of 
"  the  first  three  centuries,"  we  encounter  a  furtlier  difii' 
culty.  Of  the  authors  of  that  period  whose  writings 
have  come  down  to  us,  often  in  a  very  fragmentary  state, 
none  were  employed  in  discussing  the  leading  "  points  " 
of  High  Churchisra.  Their  attention  was  chiefly  direct- 
ed to  other  suhjects  of  an  entirely  different  nature — to 
the  controversies  with  Jews  and  heathens,  or  to  various 
topics  of  discussion  which  had  sprung  up  among  them- 
selves. Of  course  their  allusions  to  the  subjects  which 
■we  are  now  considering  are  accidental.  For  this  reason 
they  do  not  state  their  views  with  the  precision  and 
cautious  accuracy  which  are  expected,  and  usually  ex- 
hibited on  the  part  of  those  who  write  expressly  on  these 
topics.  Hence  their  style  is  often  extremely  rhetorical, 
they  over-look  obvious  distinctions,  and  defy  all  logical 
arrangement.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  testimony 
of  such  witnesses  even  to  ecclesiastical  facts,  or  in  regard 
to  the  existing  government  and  usages  of  the  churches,  is 
to  be  received  with  great  caution,  and  with  many  grains 
of  allowance.* 

To  illustrate  this  loose  and  uncertain  use  of  terms 
where  they  mean  nothing,  or  at  least  mean  something 
quite  different  from  thei)'  ordinary  acceptation,  we  have 
a  striking  example  in  the  history  of  "  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy" in  this  country.  Near  the  close  of  the  last 
century,  Mr.  Wesley  sent  Thomas  Coke,  one  of  his 
preachers,  to  America,  to  superintend  the  organization 
of  churches,  &c.  In  the  course  of  some  years  this  sim- 
ple transaction,  in  which,  as  Dr.  Bangs  expresses  it, 
"  Mr.  Wesley  set  apart  by  prayer  and  imposition  of 
hands,  Thoj.  Coke  as  superintendent  of  the  Methodist 
societies  in  America,"  is  announced  to  the  public  in 
'•  the  Book  of  Discipline,"  under  the  title,  "  Origin  of 
THE  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."    How  does  the 

*  Milner  speaks  of  the  ''  too  florid  and  tumid  style"  of  certain 
narratives  of  the  2d  century,  and  condemns  this  "  tawdy  garb 
in  wliich  thev  clotlied  evanfrelicnl  and  spiritual  sentiments." 
15 


162  High  Church  Episcx)pacy. 


affair  appear  now  ?  In  some  twenty-four  lines  we  find 
such  phraseology  as  this :  "Mr.  Wesley  preferring  the 
EPISCOPAL  mode  of  church  government" — "  letters  of 
episcopal  orders" — "  episcopal  office" — episcopal  ordina- 
tion, &c.;"  and  all  in  reference  to  Wesley's  appointment 
of  Thos.  Coke  as  superintendent,  together  with  the  fact 
of  Coke  ordaining  others.  And  "the  General  Conference," 
we  are  assured,  were  "fully  satisfied  of  the  validity  of 
their  episcopal  ordination  !"*  Yet,  the  Methodists 
recognize  no  third  order,  such  as  bishops,  as  distinct 
from  presbyters  by  divine  right. 

Now  suppose  such  a  fragment  as  this  had  come  down 
to  us,  having  originated  within  a  few  years  after  the 
death  of  the  last  Apostle.  Of  course  one  inference  would 
be,  that  as  these  primitive  Methodist«  were  competent 
"  witnesses  of  said  facts,"  and  could  hardly  be  mistaken 
in  matters  of  such  recent  date,  Mr.  Wesley  must  have 
been  a  peelatical  bishop,  perhaps  an  archbishop ; 
since  the  Episcopal  Church,  of  which  he  was  a  member, 
did  not  recognize  the  validity  of  ordination,  except  as 
performed  by  a  bishop  !  Yet  it  is  well  known  that  Mr. 
Wesley  avowed  that  "  Lord  King's  account  of  the  primi- 
tive church  had  convinced  him  that  bishops  and  elders 
(or  presbyters)  are  the  same  order."  And  in  writing  to 
Mr.  Asbury  he  said,  in  reference  to  his  being  called 
bishop  :  "For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake, 
put  a  full  end  to  this."  And  yet  these  "  witnesses  of 
facts"  (the  title  which  Episcopalians  give  to  the  early 
fathers)  say  that  Wesley  set  apart  Coke  to  the  episcopal 
office,  delivered  to  him  letters  of  episcopal  orders, 
and  directed  him  to  set  apart  Mr.  Asbury  to  the  same 
episcopal  office  !"  But  all  kno  *  that  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy recognizes  only  "  two  ordei-s,  presbyters  and 
deacons,"  with  a  superintendent  called  a  bishop. 

AVe  can  readily  conceive,  therefore,  that  as  the  pride 
of  power,  and  the  lust  of  high-sounding  titles  gradually 

*  Book  of  Discip.,  p.  6.  Mr.  Wesley's  fopinion  of  "bishops," 
as  he  saw  them  in  England,  may  be  learned  from  his  letter  to 
Mr.  Asbniy,  Sept.  20,  1787 — "Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a 
fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel — but  they  shall  never,  with  my  consent 
call  me  a  bishop  " 


TiiE  Testimony  of  Jkrome. 


superseded  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  as  the 
writers  of  "  the  church  of  the  first  three  centuries" 
generally  discuss  topics  not  at  all  related  to  the  prelati- 
cal  controversy — they  often  give  us  the  rhetoric  of  the 
subject,  not  its  logic. 

Well,  therefore,  might  the  Episcopal  Bishop  Hurd 
say  of  the  early  fathers,  who  are  appealed  to  as  "  wit- 
nesses of  facts  :"  "  Their  writings  were  composed  in  so 
loose  and  declamatory,  and  often  in  so  hyperbolical 
strain,  that  no  certain  sense  could  be  affixed  to  their 
doctrines,  and  anything  or  everything  might,  with  some 
plausibility,  be  proved  from  them."  * 

IV.  We  have  shown  that  the  learned  Episcopal  his- 
torian, Milner,  cannot  work  with  Dr.  Van  D.'s  rule,  so 
as  to  discover  High  Church  Episcopacy  in  "the  first  three 
centuries."  But  it  has  been  said  with  great  confidence, 
that  we  "can  produce  no  record  of  a  change  from  primi- 
tive simplicity,  but  are  obliged  to  imagine  it,  that  we 
are  countenanced  liy  none  of  the  recoixls  of  the  early 
church,  &c.,  &c."t  To  meet  these  bold  assertions,  let  us 
go  back  some  1,500  yeai's  and  inquire  whether  the  men 
of  that  period  had  any  better  success  in  their  inquiries 
into  "  early  church  history,"  or  that  of  "  the  first  three 
centuries." 

In  the  year  331  was  born  Jerome,  "  the  most  learned 
of  the  Latin  fathers,  and  eminent  both  for  genius  and 
industry " — "  a  man  humble  before  God,  and  truly 
pious"J — -"without  controversy,  by  far  the  most  learned 
and  eloquent  of  all  theCh  ristians,  the  prince  of  Christian 
divines  "  §  — "  the  teacher  of  the  world."  Here  is  a 
man  who  can  not  be  suspected  of  ignorance,  nor  be 
charged  with  blinding  prejudice  against  the  very  church 
of  which  he  was  so  distinguished  a  minister.  Jerome, 
we  will  readily  concede,  during  his  long  life  of  over 
ninety  years,  found  many  features  of  the  modern  Higli 

*  Introduction  to  Study  of  Prophecy,  p.  241. 

f  •'  Not  a  writer  of  antiquity  has  told  us  when  or  where  or  by 
what  means  the  change  took  place,  or  who  efiected  it,  or  that 
such  a  change  took  place  at  all."  Clerg.  Looking,  &c.,  p.  344. 

X  Milner. 

^  Erasmus,  a  learned  Papist,  says  this  of  .Jerome. 


164  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Churchism  already  largely  developed.  A  hundred 
years  previously,  in  the  days  of  Cyprian,  Milner  says, 
"  the  ideas  of  Episcopacy  Avere  too  lofty  " — "  they  had 
grown  with  the  growth  of  superstition  ;"  and  again,  "the 
authority  of  the  bishop  was  by  no  meam  unlimited,  but 
it  was  very  great." 

This  learned  and  pious  father  Jerome  had  been  study- 
ing the  Scriptures,  especially  Paul's  epistles,  and  in  pre- 
paring a  commentary  on  Titus,  he  encountered  that 
singular  direction  of  the  Apostle,  chap.  1:5,  "I  left 
thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  ordain  elders  (presby- 
ters) in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee  :  if  any  be 
blameless,  *  *  *  *  j^^  ^  bishop  viust  he  hlameless, 
&c."  This  passage  naturally  led  Jerome  to  inquire 
into  the  distinction  between  "bishop"  and  "presbyter," 
and  whether  in  the  church  as  established  by  the  Apos- 
tles, there  was  any  difference  at  all.  The  results  of  his 
investigations  he  has  given  us  at  length. 

1.  From  the  language  of  Paul  (Tit ,  chap.  1 :  5-7) 
Jerome  infers,  "  A  presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  bish- 
op." Or,  as  he  repeats  in  one  of  his  epistles,  "Apostolus 
perspicue  docet,  eosdem  esse  presbyteros  quos  et  epis- 
copos,"  i.  e.,  "  The  apostle  clearly  teaches  that  presbyters 
and  bishops  are  the  same."*  What  then  becomes  of  the 
High  Church  dogma  that  "the  primitive  bishop  be- 
longed to  a  different  and  a  superior  orderr  of  clergy,"  and 
that  "he  received  a  new  and  special  ordination  to  mark 
his  superiority  over  the  presbyters  as  an  inferior  order." 

2.  Jerome  unhesitatingly  traces  the  government  of 
bishops  over  large  dioceses  of  numerous  congregations, 
pastors  and  presbyters,  not  to  divine  authority,  but  to 
a  very  different  source.  Hear  him :  "  Before  that, 
through  the  instigation  of  the  devil  (diaboli  instinctu), 
fancies  (or  parties)  existed  in  religion,  and  it  was  said 
amongst  the  people,  '  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  ApoUos,  and 
I  of  Cephas  ;'  the  churches  were  governed  by  a  common 
council  of  the  elders"  (or  presbyters,) — communi  pres- 
byterorum  concilio  ecclesise  gubernabantur.  This  is 
sti'ong  testimony  against  the   government  of  bishops. 

*  The  Latin  original  in  full  may  be  .<!een  in  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleel's  "  Irenicuni  " 


Jerome's  Prksbyterianis.i. 


165 


Before  the  devil  had  become  so  busy  and  successful  in 
his  work  of  the  gradual  introduction  of  Popery,  the 
churches  were  governed  by  the  "  council  of  the  pres- 
byters," or  by  the  presbytery.    Of  course,  bishops  as  "a 


other  positive  testimony  to  the  same  effect.    Hear  him  : 

3.  "Afterwards,  when  every  one  accounted  those 
whom  he  baptized  as  belonging  to  himself,  it  was  de- 
creed throughout  the  whole  world  that  one  chosen  from 
among  the  presbyters  should  he  put  over  the  rest,  and 
that  the  whole  care  of  the  church  should  be  committed 
to  him,  and  the  seeds  of  schism  taken  away."  In  this  pas- 
sage, Jerome  makes  short  work  of  the  doctrine  of  the  di- 
vine right  of  High  Church  Episcopacy.  The  church,  he 
tells  us,  had  spread  throughout  the  whole  world  (toto  orbe) 
under  the  rule  of  "  the  common  council  of  the  pres- 
byters," before  this  human  device  to  destroy  "  the  seeds 
of  schism"  had  its  origin.  To  prevent  division  and 
strifes,  they  agreed  to  set  up  a  sort  of  common  centre  of 
unity  in  each  presbytery.  And  from  this  small  begin- 
ning arose  the  doctrine  of  a  hiei'archy  of  "  three  orders." 
Agreeably  to  these  statements,  for  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  the  crucifixion,  all  Christian  ministers  were 
ordained  by  presbyters,  a  title  which  even  the  Apostle 
John  adopts.  The  bishop,  presiding  officer,  president, 
moderator  {hj  whatever  name  he  might  be  called),  was 
in  fact  only  the  chief  presbyter.  Accordingly,  Firmil- 
ian,  a  father  of  the  third  century,  expressly  affirms  : 
"All  power  and  grace  are  established  in  the  church 
where  the  elders  (presbyters)  preside,  who  possess  the 
power  of  baptizing,  as  of  confirming  and  ordaining" — 
manum  impoueudi  et  ordinandi  possideut  potestatem.* 

4.  Jerome  next  proceeds  to  confirm  and  establish  his 
views  by  the  text  Philippians  1:1,  "Paul  and  Timotheus, 
servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  which  are  at  Philip- 
pi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons."  "Philippi,"  argues 
Jerome,  "  is  a  single  city  of  Macedonia  ;  and  certainly 
in  one  city  there  could  not  be  several  bishops,  as  they  are 
now  styled ;   but  as  they  at  that  time  called  the  very 

*  See  hw  Epistle  in  tlie  works  of  Cyprian,  p.  304.  Dr.  Killen's 
Ancient  Cliurch,  p.  580. 


were   unknown.    But  Jerome  finds 


166  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


same  persons  bishops  whom  they  called  presbyters,  the 
Apostle  has  spoken  without  distinction  of  bishops  and 
presbyters."  In  further  proof,  he  then  refers  to  Acts 
20 :  17,  28.  Paul  sends  for  "  the  elders  (or  presbyters) 
of  Ephesus,"  *  *  and  tells  them  "  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  made  them  overseers  (or  bishops)  of  the  flock." 
"  Our  intention  in  these  remarks,"  adds  Jerome,  "  is  to 
show,  that  among  the  ancients  (of  course  in  "  the  first 
three  centuries ")  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the 

VERY  SAME." 

5.  But  if  this  were  so  obviously  true  from  the  apos- 
tolic records,  how  came  the  change  which  Jerome  ad- 
mits to  have  existed  in  his  day  ?  He  answers :  "  By 
little  and  little,  jmulatim,  that  the  plants  of  dissension 
might  be  uprooted,  the  whole  concern  was  devolved 
upon  an  individual"  (ad  ununi).  This  innovation  upon 
the  apostolic  order  was  introduced  gradually.  It  was  a 
remedy  of  man's  device  for  the  evils  of  the  factious 
spirit  which,  beginning  at  Corinth,  had  extended  itself 
into  different  countries  (in  populis).  But  like  most 
other  departures  from  primitive  simplicity,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  proceed  cautiously  in  order  to  prevent  opposi- 
tion. 

6.  By  what  authority,  then,  had  bishops  in  Jerome's 
day  assumed  the  title,  and  with  it  appropriated  some  of 
the  iBOst  precious  rights  of  presbyters  to  themselves? 
Jerome  gives  the  explanation  :  "  It  was  by  the  custom 
of  the  church  ! "  "As  the  presbyters  therefore  know," 
he  continues,  "  that  they  are  subjected  by —  "  what  ? 
Ajoostolic  authority  ?  Divine  right  ?  No  ! — "  they  are 
sulyected  by  the  custom  of  the  church-  (ex  ecelesice 
consuetudine)  to  liim  who  is  set  over  them.  So  let  the 
bishops  know  that  they  are  greater  than  presybyters, 
MORE  BY  cusTOJi  than  by  any  real  appointment  of 
Christ"  (magis  consuetudine  quam  dispositionis  do- 
miuicte  veritate).  So  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  ex- 
pressly asserts  that  the  first  bishops  were  made  by  the 
presbyters  themselves,  and  of  course  possessed  no  author- 
ity above  that  of  presbyters — and  he  gives  for  an  ex- 
ample what  had  always  (semper)  occurred  at  Alexan- 
dria down  till  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  viz.,  "the 


Prelacy  a  Gkadual  Growth. 


167 


presbyters  always  chose  one  of  their  own  number,  placed 
him  in  a  superior  station  and  called  him  bishop." 

7.  These  conclusions  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Latin 
fathers,  it  should  be  particularly  noticed,  are  not  stated 
as  his  private  opinions,  but  as  the  plain  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  (non  nostram,  says  Jerome,  sed  scripturarum 
sententiam),  and  he  confirms  his  testimony  by  the  his- 
tory of  the  primitive  church.  To  give  additional  force 
to  his  reasoning,  he  makes  a  direct  appeal  to  the  pres- 
byters and  bishops  of  his  day  for  the  truth  of  his  state- 
ments. He  tells  them  plainly  that  they  knew  as  well 
as  he  did,  that  he  had  given  the  only  true  solution  of  the 
rise  and  progress  of  the  spirit  and  principles  of  High 
Church  Episcopacy  as  then  partially  developed  !  It  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  as  Miluer  testifies,  that  being  a 
presbyter,  "  he  never  would  proceed  any  further  in  ec- 
clesiastical dignity."*  The  office  and  title  (presbyter) 
bestowed  by  the  divine  Master  was  "  dignity  "  enough 
for  Jerome,  without  any  human  super-additions — and  so 
they  should  be  for  every  right-minded  minister  of  the 
meek  and  lowly  Saviour. 

To  prove  that  these  were  no  hasty  opinions  thrown 
out  by  the  father  in  an  unguarded  moment,  we  have  not 
only  the  same  sentiments  in  nearly  the  same  words  as 
before  quoted  from  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius,  but  in  his 
letter  to  Oceanus,t  a  presbyter,  he  says  expressly : 
"Apud,  veteres,  iidem  episcopi  et  presbyteri  fuerint" — 
"  quia  illud  nomen  dignitatis  est,  hoc  ;etatis ;  "  that  is, 
'•Among  the  ancients,  {i.  e.,  in  the  primitive  church), 

BISHOP   AND  PRESBYTER  WERE  THE   SAME  "  "  the  One 

name  being  that  of  dignity,  the  other  of  age."  In  these 
various  forms,  in  commenting  on  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
and  in  writing  to  two  of  his  friends,  this  learned  father 
teaches  "  the  historical  fact "  of  the  identity  of  the 
office  of  presbyter  and  bisho{)  in  apostolic  times,  ac- 
counts for  the  change  whicli  had  been  gradually  iutro- , 
duced,  and  appeals  to  his  brethren  of  the  ministry  for 
the  truth  of  his  statements. 

That  this  interpretation  of  Jerome's  language  has. 

-"-  Churcli  Hist.,  vuL  II,  p.  452. 
t  Jero;no's  Jipist.,  No.  iij. 


168 


•High  Church  Episcopacy. 


been  admitted  by  many  of  the  wisest  and  most  learned 
of  the  English  hierarchy,  we  will  adduce  a  few  speci- 
mens in  proof.  Thus  Bishop  Bonner  :  "I  consider  (after 
the  sentence  of  Jerome)  that  in  the  beginning  of  the 
church  there  was  none  (or  if  it  were,  very  small)  differ- 
ence between  a  bishop  and  a  priest  (or  presbyter),  es- 
pecially touching  the  signification."  Dr.  Cox,  after- 
wards Bishop  of  Ely,  says :  "  Although  by  Scripture 
(as  St.  Jerome  saith,)  priests  and  bishops  be  one,  and 
therefore  the  one  not  before  the  other ;  yet  bishops  as 
they  be  now,  were  after  priests,  and  therefore  made  of 
priests."  Dr.  Redmayn,  Master  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge,  says  :  "  They  (bishops  and  presbyters)  be  of 
like  beginning,  and  at  the  beginning  were  both  oxe, 
as  St.  Jerome  and  other  old  authors  show  by  Scripture." 
Dr.  Edgeworth  says :  "  That  the  priests  in  the  primi- 
tive church  made  bishops,  I  think  no  inconvenience,  as 
Jerome  saith  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius.  Even  as  soldiers 
choose  one  among  themselves  to  be  their  captain." 

In  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  Dr.  Alley,  Bishop  of  Ex- 
eter, writes  as  follows  :  "  What  difference  is  between  a 
bishop  and  a  priest  (presbyter),  St.  Jerome,  comment- 
ing on  Titus,  doth  declare,  whose  words  be  these  :  '  Idem 
est  ergo  presbyter  qui  episcopus,' — a  priest  therefore  is 
the  same  that  a  bishop  is."  Again,  "  These  words  are 
alleged  that  it  may  appear  priests  among  the  elders  to 
have  been  even  the  same  that  bishops  mere.  But  it  grew 
hy  little  and  little  that  the  whole  charge  and  cure  should 
be  appointed  to  one  bishop  within  his  cui'e,"  &c.  Pil- 
kington,  Bishop  of  Durham,  says :  "The  privileges  and 
superiorities  which  bishops  have  above  other  ministers, 
are  rather  granted  by  m"n  *  *  than  commanded  by 
God  in  his  word."  "  St.  Jerome,  in  his  commentary  on 
Titus,  says  that  a  bishop  and  a  priest  is  all  one.  *  * 
A  bishop  is  a  man  of  office,  labor  and  pains." 

Bishop  Jewel  adds  his  testimony :  "  Jerome  saith 
*  *  *  the  apostle  plainly  teacheth  us  that  priests  and 
bishops  be  all  one."  "  Chrysostom  saith,  '  Between  a 
.bishop  and  a  priest  in  a  manner  there  is  no  diferenee.'  " 
"  Ambrose  saith,  '  There  is  but  oue  consecration  (ordi- 
natio)  of  priests  and  bishops ;  for  both  are  priests,  but 


BisHor  AND  Presbyter  the  same.  169 


the  bishop  is  the  first.'  "*  And  Dr.  (afterwards  Bishop) 
Stillingfleet  places  his  seal  upon  the  judgment  of  Jewel 
and  others  :  "I  believe,"  he  says,  "upon  the  strictest  in- 
quiry, *  *  *  tijat  Jerome,  Augustine,  Ambrose, 
Chrysostom,  Theodoret  and  Theophylact  were  all  of  the 
same  judgment  with  Aerius  as  to  the  identity  of  both  the 
name  and  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  primi- 
tive church."  *  *  *  "  Jerome,"  he  adds,  "  though 
he  held  the  same  doctrine,  did  not  think  it  necessary  to 
cause  a  schism  in  the  church  by  separating  from  the 
bishops." 

'1  hus  it  is  plain  that  the  interpretation  which  Pres- 
byterians put  upon  Jerome's  language  is  no  special  plea 
for  the  occasion.  It  would  be  easy  to  quote  many  others 
of  the  same  eminent  English  divines  to  the  same  pur- 
port. Thus,  one  of  the  martyrs  of  the  time  of  Henry 
VIII,  John  Lambert:  "Jerome  saiih  bishops  were  no 
other  than  priests."  Bishop  Morton  and  Dr.  Willett  are 
of  the  same  mind.  Dr.  Whitaker  adds  :  "  If  Aerius  was 
a  heretic  in  this  point  (identity  of  presbyters  and  bishops) 
he  had  Jerome  to  be  his  neighbor  in  that  heresy  ;  and  not 
only  him,  but  other  fathers."  Bishop  Croft :  "  The  whole 
epistle  (of  Jerome  to  Evagrius)  is  to  show  the  identity  of 
them,"  i.  e.,  "  of  Episcopacy  and  presbytery,"  as  he  had 
just  stated. 

Now  if  language  has  any  meaning,  then  these  dis- 
tinguished Episcopal  dignitaries  clearly  teach  that  in  the 
days  of  Jerome  (fourth  century)  a  great  change  had  al- 
ready taken  place  from  the  apostolic  plan  of  church 
government ;  and  that  this  change  was  admitted  to  have 
occurred  and  was  openly  avowed  and  discussed  by  the 
most  learned  and  eminent  of  the  fathers  of  that  period. 
Yet  one  of  the  modern  High  Church  publications  assures 
us  "  that  NOT  A  WRITER  o/  antiquity  has  told  us  *  * 
by  what  means  the  change  took  place,  or  that  such  a 
change  took  place  at  all."  "  Dead  silence  of  all  an- 
tiquity as  to  any  change  at  all."    Of  the  same  period 

*  The  last  few  cxtnicls  are  from  "A  Vintlication  of  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Cluirch  of  England  on  the  ValiJiiy  of  the  Orders  of  the 
Scotch  and  Foreign  Non-Episcopal  Church."  By  Rev.  W.  Goode, 
Episcopal  Minister  of  London. 


170  High  Church  Episcopacy, 


was  Hilary  or  Ambrose :  "  After  churches  were  planted 
in  all  places,  and  officers  ordained,  matters  were  settled 
othenriae  than  in  the  beginning.  And  hence  it  is 
that  the  Apostle's  writings  do  not  in  all  things  AGEEE 
with  the  present  coti.sliiuUon.  of  the  church,  BECAUSE  they 
are  written  under  the  first  rise  of  the  church.  For  he 
(Paul)  calls  Timothy,  who  was  created  bj'  him  a  pres- 
byter, a  bishop;  for  so  at  first  presbyters  were  called, 
among  whom  this  was  the  course  of  governing  churches, 
that  as  one  withdrew,  another  took  his  place ;  and  in 
Egypt  the  presbyters  cjrclain  (consignant)  in  the  bishop's 
absence.  But  because  the  following  presbyters  began 
to  be  found  unwortln^  to  hold  the  first  place,  the  method 
was  changed,  the  council  providing  that  not  order  (order 
of  rofniion  i)robablyj  but  merit  sliouM  creiite  a  bi.diop." 
ConiDieni.  on  Ephes.i:  2.  Such  is  Hilai'v's  account  of 
the  nradual  change  from  presbytery  to  the  corruptions 
of  Higli  C'liurchism!  The  exact  meaning  of  the  word 
consignant,  traiisLited  "  ordain,"  is  perhaps  doubtful, 
though  it  is  thus  rendered  by  some  eminent  Episcopal 
authors  ;  but  the  general  purport  of  the  i^assage  remains 
the  same,  no  matter  what  meaning  is  attached  to  that 
term. 

More  than  this ;  the  "  dead  sihnce  of  all  antiquity  " 
is  broken  by  no  less  a  personage  than  Augustine,  the 
greatest  and  best  of  all  the  fathers.  Contemporary  with 
Jerome,  he  writes  to  him  as  follows:  "I  entreat  you  to 
correct  me  faithfully  when  you  see  I  need  it.  For  al- 
though according  to  the  names  of  honor  v>  hich  the  cus- 
tom of  the  church  (quae  jam  ecclesiaj  usus  obtinuit)  has 
NOW  brought  into  use,  the  office  of  bishop  is  greater  than 
that  of  presbyter,  nevertheless  in  many  respects  Augus- 
tine is  inferior  to  Jerome."*  It  is  worthy  of  note,  that 
Bishop  Jewel  quotes  this  pas?age  to  prove  that  "the 
office  of  a  bishop  is  above  that  of  a  priest,  not  by  author- 
ity of  Scripture,  but  after  the  names  of  honor  which  the 
custom  of  the  church  hath  now  obtained. "t 

The  eloquent  Chiysostora,  at  the  dose  of  the  fourth 
centriry,  also  bieaks  "  the  dead  silence  of  all  antiquity  " 
*Episl.  19 

t  Defence  of  his  Apology,  pp.  122,  123. 


The  Presbyters  Defrauded.  171 


as  follows:  "  Between  bishop  and  presbyter  there  is  not 
much  difference  ;  for  these  (presbyters)  also  in  like  man- 
ner have  had  committed  to  them  both  the  instruction  and 
the  government  of  the  church.  And  what  things  he 
(Paul)  has  said  concerning  bishops,  the  same  also  he  in- 
tended for  presbyters.  For  they  have  gained  the  ascend- 
ancy over  them  (the  presbyters)  only  in  respect  to  ordi- 
nation ;  and  of  this  they  seem  to  have  defrauded  the 
presbyters."*  Chrysostom  admits  that  in  his  day  bishops 
were  superior  to  presbyters  in  the  matter  of  ordination — 
but  he  asserts  that  in  this  they  had  cheated  them  of  their 
rights.  The  Greek  word  he  employs,  nhovexrecv,  is  the 
same  as  in  1  Thess.  4:6,"  That  no  man  go  beyond  and 
defraud  his  brother."!  In  such  terms  of  condemnation 
does  he  refer  to  the  ambitious  aspirings  of  church-men, 
whose  aim  seems  to  have  been  chiefly  to  promote  their 
own  aggrandizement. 

Even  Theodoret  of  the  following  century  says :  "  The 
Apostles  call  a  presbyter  a  bishop,  as  we  showed  when 
we  explained  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians ;  which  may 
also  be  leai-ned  from  1  Tim.  3."  These  and  other 
witnesses  demonstrate  the  recklessness  of  the  assertion  so 
often  and  so  positively  made,  "that  none  of  the  early 
historians  or  writers  ever  say  one  word  about  Presby- 
terian parity" — "  not  one  word  said  about  the  matter 
(of  its  being  set  aside)  *  *  *  to  account  for  it,  or 
so  much  as  to  record  it,"  "  universal  silence  reigns,"  &c., 
&c.  The  gradual  encroachment  of  the  High  Church 
assumptions,  of  which  Jerome  speaks,  kept  pace  with 
other  superstitions,  as  the  Episcopal  Milner  truly  affirms. 
Within  ffty  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  uine  in  the 
sacrament  of  the  supper  was  constantly  mixed  with 
wafer.  Ireu?eus  adduces  in  pretended  proof  of  this  bold 
innovation,  the  teaching  and  practice  of  Clirist,  and 
both  he  and  Cyprian  affirm  that  it  was  received  by 
tradition,  and  was  a  part  of  the  primitive  institution. 
So  also,  the  absurd  practice  of  a.dministering  the  Lord's 
supper  to  infants  can  be  traced  to  a  very  early  period. 
*Hom.  II,  on  Epist.  to  Tim. 

t  For  a  defence  of  this  interpretation,  see  Bib.  Eep.  for  1830, 
|).  f)I. 


172 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


It  existed,  certainly,  in  the  second  century!  Cyprian, 
in  the  third  century,  speaks  of  it  as  then  no  novelty, 
but  a  common  practice.  And  even  the  great  Augustine, 
of  the  fourth  century,  calls  it  apostolval  tradition,  and 
proves  its  propriety  and  necessity  from  John  6 :  53.* 
Why,  then,  does  not  "the  Rector"  conform  to  these 
"divine  institutions  ?"  "They  are  of  the  three  centuries !" 
Such  is  the  steady,  stealthy  pace  with  which  pernicious 
and  absurd  departures  from  the  order  of  Christ's  house 
gradually  obtained  admission  and  grew  to  vast  and  dan- 
gerous proportions.  There  was  not  as  much  or  as  decid- 
ed opposition  made  to  these  superstitions,  as  to  the 
gradual  introduction  of  Prelacy.  Both  very  quietly 
insinuated  their  poison  into  the  healthy,  life-giving 
institutions  of  the  church.  These  humiliating  examples, 
especially  when  viewed  in  connection  with  the  mon- 
strous, and  not  unfrequently  ludicrous  and  contemptible 
interpretations  of  Scripture,  adopted  by  the  fathers  of 
"  the  fii'st  three  centuries,"  are  surely  enough  to  convince 
any  sane  person  of  their  character  as  guides !  "  The 
church  rej)osed  for  three  centuries  under  the  Episcopacy." 
Admitting,  for  argument,  that  it  was  so.  The  Church 
of  England  has  reposed  for  three  centuries  under  an 
Episcopacy.  Can  any  man  tell  what  she  was  in  doctrine 
under  Cranmer  and  Elizabeth,  by  what  she  is  now  ? 
Mr.  Newman  knew  what  he  said,  when  he  uttered  the 
following :  "  In  the  English  Church  we  shall  hardly 
find  ten  or  twenty  neighboring  clergymen  who  agree 
together;  and  that,  not  in  non-essentials  of  religion,  but 
as  to  what  are  its  elementary  and  necessary  doctrines  ;  or 
as  to  the  tact,  whether  there  are  any  necessary  doctrines 
at  all,  any  distinct  and  definite  faith  required  for  salva- 
tion."! 

Few  things  are  regarded  by  High  Churchmen  as  so 
absolutely  necessary  as  the  regular  tactical  succession 
of  ordained  bishops,  who  alone  have  a  right,  as  they  think, 
to  ordain  others,  to  administer  "confirmation,  &c."  Yet 
Archbishop  Whately,  of  Dublin,  says  :    "  Even  in  the 

*    Except  ye  eat  the  fiesli  and  drink  the  blood,  &c."  Ergo, 
infants  must  "eat  and  drink"  in  order  to  he  saved  ! 
-Lectures,  p.  . 'JOS. 


An  Unordained  Bishop.  173 


memory  of  persons  now  living,  fliere  existed  a  bishop, 
conceruing  whom  there  was  so  much  mystery  and  un- 
certainty, as  to  when,  where,  and  by  whom  he  had  been 
ordained,  that  doubts  existed  in  many  minds  whether 
he  had  ever  been  ordained  at  all.'"  *  And  if  such  is  the 
experience  of  an  archbishop  of  the  present  period,  how 
must  this  matter  have  been  in  the  long  night  of  ages  ? 
Of  course  this  unordained  bishop  could  neither  ordain 
nor  confirm !  All  those  ordained  by  him  were  mei'e 
laymen ! 

That  the  breaking  of  even  a  single  link  in  the  long 
chain  of  tactual  succession  would  introduce  wide-spread 
confusion  and  disaster  among  High  Church  officials,  is 
obvious  from  the  following : 

The  Episcopalian  newspaper  contains  the  sermon 
recently  delivered  by  Rev.  J.  D.  Wilson,  of  Pittsburgh, 
on  his  leaving  his  charge  to  unite  with  the  "  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church."    He  says  : 

"  I  myself  have  heard,  in  the  presence  of  a  bishop  and 
several  clergymen,  a  doctor  in  divinity  declare  that 
Presbyterians,  Methodists  and  others  did  not  possess  the 
Holy  Ghost.  That  doctor  in  divinity  is  now  a  professor 
in  a  Protestant  Episcopal  Theological  Seminary.  He 
held  the  dogma  of  apostolic  succession,  and  held  it  con- 
sistently. Protestants,  he  argued,  not  being  in  the  suc- 
cession, could  not  have  a  ministry,  and  so  could  not 
have  sacraments,  and  could  not  have  the  Holy  Ghost, 
who  is  communicated  through  sacraments.  God  forbid 
that  I  should  charge  all  holders  of  the  apostolic  succes- 
cession  with  such  a  belief  as  this.  I  simply  say  he  held 
it,  and  held  it  consistently.  He  did  not  trim  and  hedge, 
and  shrink  from  the  consequences  of  his  own  principles, 
as  others  do." 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ. 


16 


174  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

DIFFICULTIES  FROM  THE  xVAMES  AVT>  FrJCCTIONS  Of  AN- 
CIENT BISHOPS— THE  METHOD  OF  THEIR  APPOIKT- 
ME>'T,  AND  THE  LIMITED  EXTEXT  OF  THEIR  DIOCESES. 

From  the  evideuce  cow  adduced,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  many  of  the  most  eminently  learned  and  pious  of 
the  English  clergy,  as  for  example  the  Rev.  William 
Goode,  of  London,  entirely  repudiate  the  High  Church 
dogma,  "  that  ordination  by  the  hands  of  a  prelatical 
bishop  is  indispensable  to  constitute  a  valid  Christian 
ministry."  Mr.  Goode's  learned  and  able  chapter  on 
this  subject,  in  his  "  Eule  of  Faith,"  is  -well  known, 
and  to  all  impartial  minds  is  entirely  conclusive.  Even 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  says  ;  "  I  hardly  imagine 
there  are  hvo  bishops  on  the  bench,  or  one  clergyman  in 
fifty,  irho  would  deny  the  validity  of  the  ORDEUg  of 
those  pastors  (foreign  Protesrtant  non-episcopal  minis- 
ters), solely  on  account  of  their  wanting  the  imposition 
of  Episcopal  hands." 

"So  far  as  my  own  judgment  serves,"  adds  Bishop 
Broughton,  "  it  leads  me  to  conclude  *  *  *  that  a  min- 
istry derived  by  apostolic  succession,  though  not  indis- 
pensable to  the  maintenance  of  the  church  in  being,  is 
finally  essential  to  its  continuance  in  icell  being."  "The 
Reformers,"  adds  Bishop  Musgrave,  as  before  quoted, 
"  distinguished  between  *  *  *  what  is  essential  to  the 
being,  and  what  is  essential  to  the  u-ell  being  of  a  church 
— a  wise  distinction,  which  good  sense  and  Christian 
charity  should  lead  us  all  ever  to  keep  in  sight  " — and 
"  to  spread  abroad  this  (the  opposite!  notion  would  be 
to  make  ourselves  the  derision  of  the  y:orld."'* 

We  are  now  prepared  to  examine  more  closely  the 
*  See  his  Charge  in  Bricknell 


ToPLADV  ON  THE  FaTHEES. 


]7o 


testimony  of  tlie  fathers  of  "the  first  three  centuries,"  in 
order  to  disrover  uhcthrr  \hej  tcacli  tlie  distinctive 
features  of  Hifrh  Chiirchisni,  viz.,  tliat  "the  bishops  of 
the  priniitivij  church  were  ;i  ili-<tiiid  itnJer  froru  presbyters 
— and  that  they  (bishops)  had  a  new  and  distinct  (a 
third)  ordination,  and  possessed  exclusively  the  right  of 
ordaiuing  other  ministers;  and  that  each  bishop  liad  un- 
der liis  watch  and  official  care  a  number  of  congregations 
with  their  pastors :  and  finally,  that  this  sort  of  Epis- 
copacy was  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles." 

It  is  certainly  quite  discouraging  to  High  Churchmen, 
at  the  threshold  of  this  inquiry,  to  reflect  that  such  em- 
inent scholars  and  divines  as  Jerome,  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, and  others  of  the  same  period — to  say  nothing  of 
many  of  the  most  distinguished  Episcopalians  of  modern 
times — have  here  encountered  such  formidable  obsta- 
cles. Surely  if  tlie  High  Church  theory  had  been 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  or  by  the  fathers  of  "  the  first 
three  centuries,"  such  men  would  have  discovered  it. 
But  no !  Some  of  them  employ  the  very  language  of 
Presbyterians,  quote  the  same  proof-texts,  and  use  the 
same  train  of  reasoning. 

More  than  this :  no  fact  of  the  controversy  is  more 
patent  than  this,  that  while  men  of  equal  learning  differ 
in  their  interpretation  of  certain  pi-oof- texts  ordinarily 
adduced  from  Scripture,  the  fathers  themselves,  to  whom 
the  appeal  is  made  with  so  much  confidence,  are,  to  say 
the  least,  equally  ambiguous ;  and  on  these  identical 
points!  The  writings  of  "the  fathers"  need  an  inter- 
preter, certainly  as  much  as  Christ  and  the  Apostles ! 
Papist  and  Greek,  Presbyterian  and  Independent,  claim 
the  sanction  of  these  fathers  equally  with  the  High 
Churchmen.  And  to  many  persons  it  sounds  very  like 
blasphemy  to  affirm  that  "  men  who  spoke  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  taught  mankind  so  unintel- 
ligibly that  their  "  instructions  in  the  way  of  life"  can- 
not be  understood,  except  with  the  aid  of  "  the  fathers  " 
— yes,  of  "  the  fathers,"  of  whom  Toplady,  himself  an 
eminent  Episcopal  minister,  says  :  "  The  golden  grains 
are  almost  lost  amidst  an  infinity  of  rubbish  " — "  their 
study  is  barren  and  unimproving" — "one  pearl  in  an 


176 


Hj(iH  ChUKCH  EpIS(  r)PA(  v. 


oyester  of  a  million  " — "  a  lifetime  would  hardly  suffice 
to  read  them  with  care,  and  perhaps  two  lifetimes  to 
digest  them  completely."*  The  Word  of  God,  it  has 
been  well  said,  is  "the  star  in  the  east,  to  guide  us  to 
the  temple  where  Christ  is  to  be  found  and  worshipped  " 
— and  to  turn  aside  from  following  this  heavtnly  light, 
to  obtain  direction  from  "the  scribes  and  rabbis  of  Je- 
rusalem," is  only  to  encounter  darkness  and  perplexity. 
Still,  as  High  Churchmen  insist  upon  calling  these  wit- 
nesses, we  will  look  a  little  further  at  their  testimony. 

Before  we  proceed,  however,  it  may  be  well  to  bring 
distinctly  before  our  minds  the  state  of  the  church,  and 
of  the  world  as  influencing  the  church,  at  the  period 
under  consideration.  AVe  read  much  that  is  thought  to 
be  eloquence  in  works  of  a  certain  calibre,  of  "  three 
unbrokeu  centuries  of  repose  in  piety,  miracle  and  mar- 
tyrdom."t  But  men  who  strut  on  stilts,  especially  if 
they  be  very  high,  do  not  walk  firmly.  We  have  only 
to  open  the  sacred  records  to  discover  miK-h  that  wears 
a  very  different  aspect.  "  False  apostles  and  their  gos- 
jiel  " — "preach  Christ  of  envy  and  strife" — "false 
brethren  unawares  brought  in" — "enemies  of  the  cross 
of  Christ" — "beware,  lest  any  man  #;;o(7  you  through 
philoso])hy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men, 
not  after  Christ" — "vain  janglings  " — "concerning 
faith  made  shipwreck  " — "  blasphemed  " — "  profane  and 
vain  babblings  and  oppositions  of  science" — "erred 
concerning  the  faith" — "resurrection  already  past" — 
"  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  deceivers" — "teach  for 
filthy  'lucre's sake  " — "  unlearned  and  unstable,  wresting 
of  the  Scriptures  " — '•  many  false  prophets  gone  out  into 
the  world  " — "  grievous  wolves  shall  enter  among  you  " 
— '•  there  shall  be  false  teachers,  privily  bringing  in 
damnable  heresies  " — "  the  way  of  truth  shall  be  evil 
spoken  of."  This  is  the  style  in  which  inspired  men  de- 
nounce the  dangerous  errors  of  their  own  day,  and  pre- 

*  Works,  p.  8S. 

t  Cleigynian  Looking,  &c.,  p.  343.  So  Mr.  Van  Deusen  speaks 
of  the  faith  of  his  church  as  "  drawn  from  the  Word  of  God  as 
universally  interpreted  by  the  early  church  during  the  first  three 
centuries."    ''  Cuivcrfally  intrrinitcil 


I'lOirriiJ-,  Soil  koi:  E'khi.ac  v.  177 

diet  eveu  r/reafer  "  after  their  departure."  Well  might 
father  Jerome  say  :  "  While  the  blood  of  the  Lord  \va3 
but  receutly  shed,  It  was  maintained  that  the  Lord's  body 
was  only  an  appearance.  I  say  nothing,"  he  adds, 
"of  the  heretics  of  Judaism.  I  come  to  tliose  heretics 
who  mangled  the  gospel  " — (he  here  mentions  »even  her- 
etics) "most  of  whom  hruke  j'orUi  ilarincj  the  life  of  fhc 
Apostle  John." 

Such  being  the  doctrinal  and  practical  errors  which 
originated  under  the  very  e3'-es  of  the  Apostles,  is  it  sur- 
prising that  after  tlieir  death  great  corruptions  look 
deep  root  and  spread  widely?  The  churches  (to  say 
nothing  of  individuals)  did  not  geuerall}'  possess  copies 
of  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  valid  test,  for  the  reason 
that  the  art  of  printing  was  unknown :  their  members 
were  generally  of  the  lower  orders,  ill  informed,  educated 
in  heathenism,  credulous,  and  exposed  to  delusion.  In 
this  fruitful  soil,  Prelacy,  like  other  errors,  soon  planted 
itself  and  sent  forth  its  j)oisouous  shoots — ^in  close  prox- 
imity with  the  wide-spread  and  uuscriptural  doctrines 
of  Milleuarianism,  mingling  water  with  the  wine  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  giving  the  sacramental  elements  to  in- 
fants, the  carnal  love  of  angels  for  women,  &c.  It  is 
easy  to  talk  in  magniloquent  style  of  "  the  whole  church 
reposing  for  at  least  three  hundred  years,  &c.;"  but 
facts  are  stubborn  things.  The  whole  list  of  Christian 
authors  (except  the  Scriptures)  for  the  first  two  centu- 
ries, numbers  only  about  sixteen.  Yet  we  read  of 
"  myriads  of  other  books  "  which  are  lost.  What  then 
becomes  of"  the  primitive  Interprelntion  of  the  universal 
church In  the  gradual  advance  of  Prelacy  towards 
Popery,  no  doubt  great  care  was  taken  effectually  to 
dispose  of,  or  corrupt,  most  of  the  unfi-icadly  te-tiinony. 
The  only  wonder  is,  that  through  many  centuries  of 
Popish  misrule  and  monkish  superstition,  so  much  that 
distinctly  condemns  prelatical  usurpation  has  escaped 
the  flames,  or  the  pious  fraud  of  "the  man  of  sin." 
But  to  proceed  : 

THK  TESTIMON'Y  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY. 

I.  Clement  of  Rome  is  usually  called  an  "apostolic 


178 


High  Chur<:h  Episcopacv'. 


father,"  and  by  some  is  supposed  to  be  mentioned  by 
Paul,  Philip.  4 : 3.  The  Episcopal  Milner  calls  him 
"  the  venerable  poster  of  the  church  of  Rome."*  His 
"Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,"  referred  to  in  our  Chap.  X, 
is  of  date  A.  D.  96.  At  the  request  of  the  church  of 
Corinth,  he  wrote  this  letter  for  the  purpose  of  quieting 
the  contentions  and  removing  the  schisms  which  "  secu- 
lar ambition"f  had  introduced  among  them.  How  does 
he  address  them  ? 

1.  He  overlooks  entirely  "the  diocesan  bishop," 
or  "  angel  "  of  the  Corinthian  church.  Yet  he  doubt- 
less knew  of  the  apostolic  method,  according  to  which, 
as  High  Churchmen  say,  John  addressed  the  angels  or 
bishops  of  "  the  seven  churches  of  Asia."  Does  not  this 
look  rather  suspicious?  Where  was  the  prelatical 
bishop  of  Corinth?  Where  are  Bishop  Onderdonk's 
"thous"  and  "thees,"  showing  that  Clement  wrote 
to  the  church  through  its  "  angels?" 

2.  "  The  Apostles,"  says  Clement,  "  appointed  the 
first  fruits  of  their  labors  to  be  bishops  and  deacons."X 
He  here  uses  the  very  same  Greek  terms  employed  by 
Paul  (Philip.  1 : 1),  viz.,  episcopoi  and  diukonoi.  These, 
he  says,  they  "  proved  by  the  Spirit."  If  Paul  ad- 
dressed, as  we  know  he  did,  several  such  bishops  residing 
in  the  city  of  Philippi,  the  presumption  is  there  were  no 
fewer  at  Corinth.  Clement,  however,  treats  with  siVe/i^ 
indignity  "  the  chief  minister  or  bishop !"  Not  a  word 
about  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry !  Not  a  whisper 
about  the  superior  power  and  authority  of  their  bishop 
to  settle  such  strifes. 

3.  "  Nor  is  it  a  sin  of  small"  magnitude,"  continues 
Clement,  "to  eject  from  the  sacred  office  {episcopes, 
episcopate,  bishopric)  men  whose  ministry  has  been 
blameless.  Happy  those  presbyters  {presbuteroi)  who 
have  finished  their  course  and  departed  in  peace."§ 
Thus  not  only,  as  the  Episcopal  Faber  admits,  does  Cle- 

*  History,  Cent.  I,  p.  77.  t  Milner. 

X  We  liaVe  the  original  before  us,  but  for  the  sake  of  brevity 
omit  it.  We  use  the  translation  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury. 

?  This  is  Milner's  translation. 


Clement  not  High  ('hukch.  179 


ruent  recognize  "  no  more  than  two  orders,  the  word  bishops 
being  plainly  used  as  equivalent  to  the  word  presbyters;"* 
but  presbyters  are  distinctly  assumed  to  have  held  the  of- 
fice of  bishop,  or  the  episcopate.  Well  might  Bishop  Stil- 
lingfleet  say,  "that  bishops,  with  Clement,  are  always  the 
same  with  presbyters  and  elders."  He  remonstrates 
with  the  disorderly  Corinthians  for  having  cast  out  cer- 
tain presbyters  from  the  episcopal  office ;  and  seems  never 
to  have  dreamed  of  any  apostolic  distinction  between 
presbyters  and  bishops.  No  such  intermingling  or  con- 
fusion are  found  when  the  early  writers  speak  of  the 
official  duties  of  presbyters  (or  bishops)  and  deacons. 
The  reason  is,  they  were  distinct  orders  of  ofEcers.f 

4.  Clement  again  warns  them  not  to  "  be  led  into  a 
sedition  against  presbyters" — "  let  the  flock  of  Christ  be 
in  peace  with  iha  presbyters  that  are  set  over  it" — "sub- 
mit yourselves  to  your  presbyters."  Paul  himself  had 
uttered  the  same  pious  exhortation  :  "Let  the  jores^^ers 
(or  elders)  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
honor,  especially  they  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine." 
1  Tim.  5  :17. 

In  the  light  of  these  extracts,  it  is  candidly  admitted 
by  Dr.  Hawkins  "  that  from  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  the 
church  of  Corinth  appears  not  to  have  had  its  diocesan 
bishop,  as  well  as  its  presbyters  and  deacons.";];  Cle- 
meat,  on  the  contrary,  assumes  that  the  church  was  fully 
organized,  and  never  enjoins  the  presbyters  and  people 
to  be  in  subjection  to  such  a  personage,  as  he  doubtless 
wonld  have  done  if  prelacy  had  then  existed  at  Corinth. 
Or  at  least,  if  they  had  no  diocesan  bishop,  he  would 
have  recommended  his  immediate  appointment,  on  the 
principle,  "  no  bishop,  no  church."  But  no !  He  is 
entirely  silent  on  the  subject.  And  to  place  his  meaning 
beyond  doubt,  he  speaks  of  several  bishops  in  one  city, 
just  as  Paul  had  done,  and  represents  them  as  being 
*  Ancient  Yallcnses,  .'joS,  ;":)'). 

fit  would  Kouiul  slniii  -1;  III  i!..i.  ilays  to  hear  a  Higli 
Churchmiiii  spe;ik  of  a  /'  '  i      ■  ;      ''1  IVoui  tlie  cpi-'mpeg, 

j.  e.  epi.scop.il  office  !  Yci  su  li  iIk'  ulivi  jus  meaning  of  Cle- 
ment. 

J  Bainpton  Lectiu-e,  p.  IT'!. 


180 


High  Chukch  PLpiscopacy. 


appointed  even  in  country  villages.  These  were  obvi- 
ously not  such  bishops  as  the  Bishops  of  Pennsylvania 
and  New  York. 

5.  To  enforce  his  exhortation  to  respect  and  honor 
their  presbyters,  Clement  points  the  Corinthians  to  the 
order  observable  even  in  the  natural  world,  among  the 
members  of  the  human  body,  for  example;  also  in 
"  military  affairs,"  some  being  common  soldiers,  some 
prefects,  some  captains  of  fifty,  some  centurions,  Ac, 
each  of  whom  observes  a  proper  subordination.  Nor 
was  it  different,  he  argues,  in  the  Jewish  church,  the 
high  priests,  the  priest.s  and  Levites,  all  executing 
their  proper  ministries,  and  the  layman  is  limited  to 
the  duties  of  laymen.  So  should  there  be  an  order  in 
the  Christian  church — laymen  should  not  attempt  to 
disturb  their  presbyters  in  their  episcopal  oflSce,  i.  e.,  the 
diligent  supei-vision  of  the  affairs  of  the  church  ;  much 
less  to  cast  them  out  of  their  appointed  places. 

6.  The  only  other  passage  in  this  Epistle  of  Clement, 
which  bears  upon  the  present  controversy,  is  the  follow- 
ing: "Ye  once  did  all  things  without  respect  to  per- 
sons, and  walked  according  to  the  laws  of  God,  being 
subject  to  your  riders,  and  yielding  due  honor  to  the 
presbyters  among  you  "  "  Here,"  says  the  Prelatist,  "  is 
a  distinct  enumeration  of  the  ruler  {i.  e„  the  bishop)  and 
the  presbyter."*  But  this  is  .strange  logic.  Does  not 
Paul  say,  "  Let  the  presbyters  {elders  in  our  translation) 
that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  &c." 
1  Tim.  5:17.  Yet  we  are  assured  that  Clement  meant 
to  say,  "  the  ruler  (i.  e.,  the  bishop)  should  receive  sub- 
mission and  obedience,  but  the  presbyter,  respect  and 
honor  !"  We  think  Paul's  classification  good,  to  say 
the  least,  as  Dr.  Wainwright's.  Yet  this  is  the  sort  of 
argument  by  which  we  are  expected  to  view  "  the  eccle- 
siastical hierarchy  "  with  "  emotions  of  aice,  tconder  and 
thankfid7iess !"j  Such  is  what  is  called  Clement's  "com- 
plete and  decisive  testimony  to  the  apostolical  institution 
of  "  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry."    To  every  unpre 

■""Notes  on  Ej)iscoi)acy,"  edited  by  Dr.  Wainwright,  of  New 
York,  p.  95. 
flbid.,  p.  97. 


Thp:  Teachings  of  Hermas. 


181 


judiced  mind  it  wil]  appear  plain  that  he  represents  the 
church  as  "ruled,"  not  hy  individuals,  but  by  a  com- 
pany of  "  presbyters  "  or  elders,  just  such  as  Paul  de- 
clares "worthy  of  double  honor" — that  he  represents 
their  office  as  ''  the  episcopate,"  the  primitive  episcopal 
office — and  that  this  sort  of  episcopacy,  /.  e.,  pastoral 
rule,  prevailed  "every  where,"  not  only  in  the  city 
churches,  but  in  "  country  places."  Well  might  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  declare — "  They  that  can  find  any  one  sin- 
gle bishop  at  Corinth  when  Clement  wrote,  must  have 
better  eyes  and  judgment  than  the  deservedly  admirefl 
Grotius."* 

7.  To  about  the  same  period  (^first  century,  probably,) 
belongs  a  work  supposed  to  be  by  Hcnn:is,t  of  which  we 
have  only  an  old  Latin  translation  frmii  the  tiieek,  by 
an  unknown  hand.  In  it  we  find  such  cx})rcssions  as 
these  :  "  Delivei'ed  her  book  to  the  elders,"  ( or  presby- 
ters)— "in  this  city  (Hernias  resided  at  Rome)  thou 
shalt  read  with  the  ciders  Cpresbyters)  icho  predde  over 
the  clim-ch" — "apostles,  and  bishops,  and  doctors  ;uid 
ministers,  who  have  *  *  governed  and  taught  and 
ministered,  holily  and  modestly,  to  the  elect  of  God  " — 
"  some  of  them  have  been  bishops,  that  is,  j/rcsideiits  of 
the  churches.  Then  such  as  have  been  set  over  inferior 
ministries,  and  have  protected  the  poor  and  the  wid- 
ows," &c. 

After  what  has  been  said  in  commenting  on  the  testi- 
mony of  Clement,  we  are  willing  to  submit  to  every 
uni)rejudiced  and  intelligent  mind,  whether  these  forms 
of  i)hraseology  clearly  demonstrate  the  following  tacts, 
viz.,  that  the  churches  generally,  in  the  first  century,  re- 
cognized "  three  orders,  bishops,  priests  and  deacons" — 
whether  the  bishops,  when  promoted  from  the  office  of 
priest,  received  a  new  and  distinct  ordination  — 
whether  each  bishop  had  under  his  watch  and  care  a 

*Ireiiicum,  p.  279. 

fThe  "Notes  on  Ei)isc<jpacy "  do  not  allude  to  the  work  of 
Ibis  rutlior,  possibly  Ijccaiise  "  I  lie  testimony  of  Clement"  was  so 
very  "complete  and  decisive."  ".Jerome  expo-^es  it.s  folly" — 
"Tertiillian  lejectcd  it  witli  seorn,"  Ac.,  <^'o.  ;  i.  the  work  of 
TTernias. 


182 


rii(;n  Church  Episcopacy. 


number  of  confjreuatioiis  wirli  th'  ir  pastors ;  and  finally, 
whetlier  Hie  uiii>/e  primitiv^^-  i-lnu  ch  regarded  these  prin- 
ciples as  of  divine  institution —nay,  ind i^penaabl eXhat 
where  tliere  was  no  diocesan  bishop  there  was  no  church, 
and  coidd  be  no  Christians  !*  Hermas  does  indeed  speak 
of  "apostles,  and  bishops,  and  doctors,  and  ministers  " — 
and  a  prominent  Romish  commentator  finds  here  de- 
monstrated the  four  orders  of  his  church — '"popes,  bish- 
ops, priests  and  deacons !"  But  this  will  not  help  the 
High  C'hurcli  system.  Hermas  mentions  in  express 
terms,  "  tiie  preshyters  who  presided  over  the  church  "  of 
Home  ;  and  bishops,  according  to  him,  arc  only  "  the 
presidents  of  the  churches."  Deacons,  he  describes  as 
tliose  "who  have  the  protection  of  the  poor  and  the 
widows."  It  will  certainly  demand  "  optics  sharp  "  to 
find  here  "  throe  orders,"  Ac.,&c. 

On  such  grounds  as  these,  Presbyterian  ministei-s  were 
admitted  to  the  cure  of  souls  in  the  Church  of  England 
without  re-ordination, from  the  period  of  the  Reformation 
down  to  the  Restoration  of  Charles  II.  Thus  Strype, 
in  his  "  Life  of  (  Iriudal,"  tells  us  that  in  1582  the  Vicar- 
General  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  granted  a 
license  to  John  Morrison  in  the  following  words :  "  Since 
you  were  admitted  and  ordained  to  sacred  orders  and 
the  holy  ministry,  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  according 
to  the  laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  Scotland,  we,  therefore,  approving  and  ratifying  your 
form  of  ordination  and  preferment,  grant  to  you,  by  ex- 
])ress  command  of  the  reverend  father  in  Christ,  Lord 
Edmuud,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  to  celebrate  divine 
offices,  to  minister  tlie  sacraments,"  &c. 

And  in  IBiO,  Bishop  Cosin,  a  high  authority  with 
Prelatists,  wrote  from  Paris  as  follows :  "  Therefore,  if 
at  any  time  a  minister  so  ordained  in  these  French 
churches  came  to  incorporate  himself  in  ours,  and  to  re- 
ceive a  public  cliartre  or  cure  of  souls  among  us  in  the 
Church  of  England  (as  I  have  known  some  of  them  to 

*The  title  page  of  "Notes  on  Episcopacy,"  edited  by  Dr. 
AVainwright,  of  Is'^ew  York,  bears  a  Greek  motto  which  may  he 
rendered  tliiiR:  "  Hoiv  rniild  voti  Iip  n  riiriptinn,  if  Ihrrr  vrrr  vn 


Thk  Primitivk  Diocese  a  Pakisii.  183 


have  so  done  of  late,  imd  can  instance  in  many  others 
before  my  time),  our  bishops  did  not  re-ordain  him  be- 
fore they  admitted  him  to  his  charge,  as  they  must  have 
"done  if  his  former  ordination  here  in  France  had  been 
void."* 

These  distinguished  prelates  certainly  were  not  igno- 
rant of  the  church  of  the  first  century  ! 

II.  TESTIMONY  OF  THE   SECOND  CENTURY. 

The  principal  authors  of  this  century  are  Polycarp, 
Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenteus.  There  are  a  few 
fragments  of  others  of  inferior  note.  In  order  to  give 
method  to  our  investigation,  we  shall  classify  their  evi- 
dence under  several  distinct  heads. 

1.  The  names,  titles  and  duties  of  church  officers. — We  do 
not  deny  that  these  writers  often  speak  of  certain  indi- 
viduals as  being  bishops,  and  bishops  of  particular 
churches,  as  Paul  had  done ;  nor  do  we  question  that 
"  the  ofiice  of  a  bishop  (i.  e.  pastor,)  is  of  divine  institu- 
tion." The  Scriptures  abundantly  teach  this  truth,  and 
so  docs  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith :  "  The 
person  who  fills  the  pastoral  office,  as  he  has  the  over- 
sight of  the  flock  of  Christ  (i.  e.  the  episcopate),  is  term- 
ed a  bishop."!  Even  Bishop  Onderdonk,  as  before 
quoted,  acknowledges  that  "  in  the  New  Testament  the 
term  bishop  means  the  bishop  of  a  parish  (i.e.  a  pastor) 
or  a  presbyter."!.  Away  forward  in  the  third  century, 
Milner,  the  Episcopal  historian,  is  constrained  to  admit 
that  "the  bishop's  diocese  was  called  paroitia,  a  parish." 
But  it  appears  that  Kome  had  already  taken  large 
strides  towards  the  "  bad  eminence "  she  afterwards  at- 
tained :  "  Before  the  close  of  the  third  century,"  adds 
Milner,  "the  diocese  of  Rome  had  above  forty  churches, 
and  under  Cornelius  the  bishop,  there  were  forty-six 
priests,  or  presbyters,  forty-two  acolyths,  fifty-two  exor- 
cists, &c."  And  in  speaking  of  the  government  of  the 
church  of  the  second  century,  he  admits  that  "at  first 

Bishop  Fleetwood's  Jiulgmeiit  of  the  Clmrch  of  England  on 
ly^y-baptism. 
t  Form  of  Govenniiont,  eliap.  IV. 
t  Kvif.  Tested,  iitc  ,  i>.  20. 


184 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


or  for  some  time,  church  governors  were  only  of  two 
ranks,  presbyters  and  deacons,  *  *  as  at  Philippi 
and  at  Ephesus,  and  the  term  bishop  was  confounded 
with  presbyter.  The  church  of  Corinth,"  he  adds, 
"  continued  long  in  this  state,  so  far  as  we  may  judge  by 
Clement's  Epistle,  &c."  "  A  jeduced  Episcopacy,  in 
which  the  dioceses  are  of  small  extent,  as  those  in  the 
PRIMITIVE  church  undoubtedly  were,  &c."*  Such,  ac- 
cording to  this  learned  Episcopalian,  were  the  church 
officers  called  bishops  in  the  second  century — and  even 
far  on  in  the  third  century.  "  The  president  exercLsed  a 
superintendency  over  ten  or  twelve  presbyters  of  the 
same  city  and  neighborhood-"!  Something  of  this  very 
sort  was  practised  in  the  city  of  New  York,  before  the 
establishment  of  an  American  Episcopate.  There  was 
for  many  years,  but  one  rector  (or  president)  over  all  the 
Episcopal  churches  of  the  city,  amounting  to  several 
large  places  of  worship,  several  presbyters  and  thou- 
sands of  hearers.  And  something  of  the  same  nature 
now  exists,  as  before  stated,  among  the  Protestant  and 
Presbyterian  churches  of  France,  and  so  it  has  been 
substantially  in  that  country  ever  since  the  Reformation. 
Yet  they  never  had  prelatical  bishops.  Thus  we  see 
that  the  frequent  use  of  the  title  bishop  by  the  writers  of 
the  second  century  proves  nothing  in  favor  of  modern 
diocesan  Episcopacy,  but  rather  subverts  it. 

2.  Mode  of  constituting  bishops  in  the  second  century. 
It  is  clear  that  the  people  of  "  the  parish  "  had  much  to 
do  in  the  election  of  those  called  bishops.  "  The  choice 
of  bishops,"  says  Milner,  "  and  in  part  at  least  of  pres- 
byters BY  THE  PEOPLE,  Is  a  custom  which  seems  natu- 
rally to  have  gi'own  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
charch  at  that  time.  The  first  bishops  were  appointed 
by  the  Apostles  themselves."  "  As  the  judgment  of  the 
people  matured,  and  especially  as  the  grace  of  God  was 
powerful  among  them,  they  were  rendered  better  quali- 
fied to  BE  THE  ELECTORS  of  their  ecclcsiastical  govern- 
ors. Precedents  *  ^  *  qJ  ^gj-y  Mgh  antiquity  were 
set,  and  the  practice  continued  during  at  least  the  jirst 

■  Cent.  TI,  chap.  1. 
i  Ibid. 


Early  Bishops  Elected  by  the  People.  185 


three  ceiituries.  On  the  other  hand,  I  do  not  find  that 
the  people  had  any  power  in  deposing  a  bishop."* 
"Undoubtedly,"  adds  Milner,  "the  election  of  bishops 
devolved  on  the  people.  Tlieir  appearance  to  vote  on 
these  occasions,  their  constraining  of  persons  sometimes 
to  accept  the  office  against  their  will,  and  the  determi- 
nation of  Pope  Leo  long  after,  against  forcing  a  bishop 
on  a  people  contrary  to  their  consent,  demonstrate  this."t 
Were  these  diocesan  bishops  such  as  the  Bishops  of  the 
States  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  ?  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent that  they  were  Presbyterian  or  parochial  bishops  ; 
in  other  words,  "persons  tilling  the  pastoral  office?"!  I* 
would  puzzle  Dr.  Van  Deusen  to  tell  when  and  where  the 
people  elected  the  present  Bishops  of  Pennsylvania! 
Yet  both  Mosheim  and  Neauder  abundantly  confirm 
the  foregoing  statements  of  Milner. 

The  scriptural  precedents  for  giving  such  power  to 
the  people  were  doubtless  familiar  to  their  minds. 
When  the  first  deacons  were  appointed  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Apostles  and  ordained  by  them,  "  the  twelve 
called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them."  "  Look 
YE  (the  multitude)  out  seven  men  whom  ?oe  (the  apos- 
tles) may  appoint."  "The  whole  multitude  chose 
Stephen  and  Philip,  &c.§  We  shall  search  "  the  Prayer 
Book"  from  beginning  to  end  without  finding  anything 
to  correspond  to  this  apastolic  practice.  We  read  "  a 
priest  shall  present  unto  the  bishop  such  as  desire  to 
be  ordained  deacons."|l  The  whole  power  confided  to 
"  the  brethren  "  who  may  be  present,  is  simply  to  make 
known  any  impediment  or  notable  crime,  "  for  the  which 
the  person  or  persons  ought  not  to  be  ordained  deacons." 
And  does  that  fulfil  the  apostolic  precedent?  Are  not 
the  people  robbed  of  their  rights  ? 

Not  different  was  the  practice  in  the  election  of 

*  Cent.  IIT,  chap.  14.  f  Ibid. 

1  Piesbytirian  Form  of  Gov.,  chap.  IV. 

I  Acts  6 :  1-6. 

II  Under  the  eye  of  the  apostl&s,  "  they  (the  whole  multitude) 
set  tliem  (the  candidates  for  the  deaconship)  before  the  apostles." 
In  the  Prayer  Book,  "  the  priest"  does  it ! 


17 


186 


High  Cuurch  Episcopacy. 


Matthias  to  be  the  twelfth  apostle  in  place  of  Judas. 
Acts  1 : 15-26.  "  Without  doubt,"  says  Neander,  the 
prince  of  historians,  "  not  only  the  aix)stles  but  all  the 
believers  were  at  that  time  assembled.  For  though  the 
apostles  are  primarily  intended,  yet  the  disciples  col- 
lectively form  the  chief  subject."  So  Chiysostom : 
"  Peter,"  he  says,  "  did  everything  (in  this  election) 
with  the  common  consent,  nothing  by  his  own  will  and 
authority.  He  left  the  judgment  to  the  multitude,  to 
secure  their  respect  to  the  elected  and  to  free  himself 
from  eveiy  invidious  reflection."  On  the  words  "  they 
appointed  two,"  he  says,  "  he  did  not  himself,  appoint 
them,  it  was  the  act  of  all."  Such  also  is  the  judgment 
of  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage.* 

In  view  of  these  scriptural  examples,  we  are  prepared 
to  find  Clement  of  Rome,  the  companion  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  earliest  writer  among  "  the  fathers,"  assuming 
the  existence  of  this  popular  custom.  He  speaks  of  the 
duty  of  "  the  flock  of  Christ  to  be  in  peace  with  the 
presbytens  that  are  set  over  it,"  and  admonishes  them  be- 
cause they  had  been  led  into  "  a  sedition  against  their 
presbyters,"  had  opposed  and  ill-treated  them,  and  "  cast 
them  Old  of  their  episcopate  "  or  bishop's  office.  But  on 
the  supposition  that  diocesan  episcopacy,  with  its 
modern  claims  and  usages,  was  the  government  of  the 
church  of  Corinth,  much  of  this  language  is  perfectly 
unintelligible. 

And  to  crown  all  this  evidence  that  "the  flock  of 
Christ"  elected  their  bishop,  an  old  ecclesiastical  law, 
probably  framed  in  Italy,  belonging  to  a  collection 
styled  "the  Canons  of  Abulides,  that  is  Hippolytus," 
and  certainly  dating  back  anterior  to  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,!  speaks  as  follows:    "The  bishop  is  to 

BE    ELECTED    BY    ALL    THE  PEOPLE."     TllC   bishop  of 

primitive  times  was,  therefore,  merely  the  parochial 
shepherd,  or  pastor  of  a  church.  Which  of  the  Episco- 
pal bishops  of  this  country  was  "  elected  by  all  the  peo- 
ple?" 

*  Chrysostom's  homily  on  tlie  text.    Cypri.m,  Ep.  68. 
t  T>r.  Killen  on  the  Ancient  Church,  p.  586.    Bunsen's  Ilii>- 
5H.lytn=,  vol.  2,  pp.  351 -:«7. 


EXTEXT  OF  I'lIIO  PRIMITIVK  EPJSCOI'ATK.  187 


This  popular  feature  of  primitive  church  governmeut 
is  coDceded  by  some  of  the  ablest  of  the  defenders  of 
prelacy.  Bishop  Burnet*  admits  that  the  right  of  elec- 
tion was  takeu  from  the  people  in  the  fourth  century." 
The  Papist  Bellarmiue  concedes  that  the  practice  of  the 
people  and  clergy  (clerusetpopulus)  electing  the  bishoj), 
was  in  use  in  the  days  of  Chrysostora,  Augustine  and 
Ambrose ;  and  Cyprian  of  the  third  century,  gives  his 
judgment  and  that  of  a  number  of  other  bishops,  that 
it  is  "  the  duty  of  the  people  to  separate  from  a  bishop 
morally  unfit,  and  to  elect  another."-\  The  7th  General 
Council  by  an  express  canon  (16th)  secured  this  right 
to  the  people.  "  When  cities  were  at  first  converted  tu 
Christianity,"  says  the  Episcopal  Dr.  Hook,  "the  bishops 
were  elected  by  the  clergy  and  people."  "  But  as  the 
number  of  Christians  increased,  this  was  found  to  be 
inconvenient ;  for  tumults  were  raised,  &c.  To  prevent 
such  disorders  the  emperors  reserved  the  election  to 
themselves." X  This  was  about  as  good  a  reason  for  rob- 
bing the  people  of  their  rights  as  it  would  have  been  in 
Paul  the  Apostle  to  abolish  the  Lord's  supper  at  Corinth, 
because  some  abused  it. 

3.  Extent  of  the  episcopate  and  number  of  bishops  in 
the  second  century. 

"  The  bishops"  whom  Paul  directed  Titus  "  to  ordain 
in  every  city"  of  Crete  were  obviously  the  same  with 
"  the  presbyters."  Titus  1  : 5-7.  "At  first,"  says  Bishop 
Bui'uet,  "  every  bishop  had  but  one  parish  or  paroikia^ 
as  Milner  also  informs  us.  "  All  things  continued  thus," 
adds  Burnet,  "  till  towards  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury." But  it  is  well  known  that  in  England  the 
Bishop  of  London  has  several  millions  of  jieople  in  his 
diocese,  and  other  bishops  have  several  hundred  thou- 
sand persons  in  their  paroikas.  How  this  matter  stands 
in  America  all  know.  A  whole  State  is  certaiuly  a 
pretty  formidable  paroilda!  But  "at  the  close  of  the 
first  century,"  says  Dr.  Hawkius,  "  there  is  abundant 

*  Vind.  of  Ch.  of  Scotland,  p.  164. 
t  Epis.  G7. 

tChiircli  Dictioiian',  p.  67. 

?  Vhidic  of  Ch.  of  Scot.,  p.  !«:!. 


188 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


evidenee  of  the  general  practice  of  every  church  having 
its  bishop  as  well  as  its  presbyters  (or  elders )  and  dea- 
cons.* "In  that  age  of  truth  and  danger,"  boasts 
another,  "  there  was  in  every  city  and  island  and  toicn 
ONE  AND  ONE  ONLY,  v.ho  was  known  as  tlie  cliief  pas- 
tor or  bishop  of  the  place. "f  But  agreeably  to  this 
"primitive  Episcopacy,"  we  ought  to  have  a  large  num- 
ber of  bishops  in  the  single  county  of  Allegheny !  And 
if  "  every  city  and  town  "  in  the  seventy  counties  had 
its  bishop,  Pennsylvania  alone  would  accommodate  from 
^five  hundred  to  a  thonmnd  bishops!!!  Of  course  there 
would  be  an  equal  number  of  dioceses!  At  present, 
with  a  population  of  between  two  and  three  millions  of 
inhabitants,!  our  State  is  served  by  three  bishops  who 
have  three  dioceses !  Yet  Dr.  Van  D.  boasts  that  he 
and  his  brethren  follow  closely  the  pattern  of  the  church 
of  "the  first  three  centuries  !"  If  the  primitive  "bishop" 
in  every  city,  toicn  and  parish  was  the  pastor  of  the 
church,  as  Presbyterians  maintain  and  the  facts  prove, 
the  solution  is  obvious.  But  on  the  principles  of 
modern  High  Churchism,  all  is  "  confusion  worse  con- 
founded," a  perfect  riddle.  Nor  would  this  difficulty 
prove  less  perplexing  if  applied  to  England.  In  185-4 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  had  under  his  care 
twenty  h'lshoYis,  and  he  of  York,_/i!'e,  or,  including  Wales, 
hventy-six  bisho]JS.§  Tlie  population  of  their  dioceses  is 
about  sixteen  or  seventeen  millions.  The  number  of 
"cities  and  toirns"  in  England  and  Wales  amounts  to 
thousands,  and  if  "  every  city  and  town  "  had  its  bishop, 
the  island  would  of  course  require  some  twelve  or 
fifteen  thousand  "  loi-d  bishops,"  instead  of  twenty-sir. 

Again :  It  is  admitted  by  High  Churchmen  that  some 
of  " the  fii-st  dioceses  were  very  .5»ia^Z."  "It  is  a  great 
misfortune  to  the  Church  of  England,"  says  Dr.  Hook, 
"  that  her  dioceses,  compared  with  the  population,  are 
so  extensive  and  so  few."  "  If  the  church  thought  fit  to 
add  forty  or  a  hundred  more,  she  would  not  be  without 

*  Disc,  on  Apost.  Sucffcssion. 

t  Clersvinnn  Looking,  Ac.,  p.  341. 

tfViiMi'sof  isr<n. 

5  Mr  Ifnnk's  Clnin  l.  Oirlionarv,  (>.  l'.)7 


A  Bishop  for  each  City  and  Town.  189 


precedent  in  the  primitive  church."*  But  "the  Vicar 
of  Leeds"  is  far  too  cautious.  If  iu  the  primitive 
churcli  tliere  was  "  in  every  city  and  town  oue  known  as 
the  bishop,"  how  would  the  addition  of  "  a  hundred " 
new  bishops  to  the  English  hierarchy  make  even  a  dis- 
tant approach  to  primitive  usage  ?  At  a  low  calculation 
it  would  give  not  less  than  scores  of  "  cities  and  towns  " 
to  each  several  bishop !  Verily  we  think,  in  opposition 
to  Dr.  Hook,  this  would  certainly  be  "  without  precedent 
in  the  primitive  church  !"  If  "every  town  and  city"  had 
its  bishop,  this  would  bo  parochial  or  Presbyterian 
Episcopacy — and  this  was  doubtless  the  Presbyterian 
principle  on  which  the  primitive  pastoral  charges  were 
constituted.  How  many  inferior  clergy,  presbyters  and 
deacons,  would  such  a  bishop  need  to  assist  him  iu  his 
ministrations?  If  each  of  the  twelve  or  fifteen  thou- 
sand bishops  of  England,  thus  constituted,  had  under 
him  six  clergy,  which  we  believe  is  the  lowest  number 
admitted  in  a  modern  diocese,  certainly  the  flock  would 
be  well  fed!  At  least  if  a  multitude  of  shepherds 
would  suffice  to  secure  that  result.  All  these  and  simi- 
lar absurdities  will  be  avoided  by  simply  admitting 
with  Archbishop  Whately  that  "  a  church  and  a  dio- 
cese seem  to  have  been  for  a  considerable  time  co-ex- 
tensive and  identical."! 

*  Church  Dictionary,  Art.  Diocese. 

t  Kingdom  of  Christ,  p.  131.  The  smallest  diocese  in  the 
United  States  is  Rhode  Island.  Yet  it  would  form  a  pretty 
large  "  church,"  according-  to  Archbishop  Whately.  This  small 
diocese  or  church  contains  two  hundred  and  seventeen  thousand 
lieople,  and  covers  thirteen  hundred  square  miles  of  territory. 


190 


High  Cuuech  EpiscxjPAcri-. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

FURTHER  DIFFICULTIES  FROM  THE  EARLY  RECORDS — 
CLEMENT  AND  IGNAT1TJ8  ON  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE 
PRIMITIVE  BISHOP  AND  THE    FIELD  OF  HIS  LABORS. 

In  the  last  chapter  we  endeavored  to  disprove  the 
prelatical  or  High  Church  character  of  the  primitive 
bishop :  I.  From  the  titles  and  functions  ascribed  to 
him.  II.  From  the  primitive  method  of  constituting  a 
bishop,  in.  From  the  extent  of  his  diocese,  and  from 
the  multitude  of  bishops  occupying  very  limited  terri- 
tory. The  theory  of  High  Churchism  on  these  topics 
■was  shown  to  land  its  advocates  in  numerous  absurdities, 
and  the  admissions  of  leading  Episcopalians  proved  that 
the  primitive  bishop  was  the  simple  pastor  of  a  church. 
Let  us  now  look  a  little  more  closely  into  the  recorded 
Jacts  on  the  general  subject. 

IV.  Testimony  of  the  earliest  uninspired  re- 
cords, as  to  the  authority  of  the  bishop  and  the  field  of 
his  operations. 

1.  It  is  conceded  by  learned  High  Churchmen,  that 
among  the  nations  first  converted  to  Christianity  "dio- 
ceses were  generally  more  numerous  and  not  so  large  as  at 
subsequent  periods,  say  the  middle  ages."  "  The  whole 
extent  of  Asia  Minor,"  says  Bingham,  a  standard  Epis- 
copal authority,  630  miles  by  210,  is  admitted  to  have 
been  divided  into  '^almost  four  hundred  dioceses."* 
These  numerous  dioceses  occupied  a  territory  about  as 
large  as  the  island  of  Great  Britain,  where  there  are  now 
only  about  thirty  dioceses.  But  in  the  middle  ages, 
under  the  Popes,  as  we  are  further  told  by  the  same^ 
author,  all  Germany,  which  was  twice  as  large  as  Asia 
Minor,  had  but  forty  dioceses;  and  iu  all  Russia,  Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  Swedeland  and  Poland,  there  were  only 
ninety  four.  Bingham  does  not  attempt  to  account  for 
*  Origines  Ecclesiastice,  p.  43. 


Numerous  Bishops  in  Asia  Minok.  191 


this  remarkable  departure  from  primitive  usages,  but 
"  leaves  it  to  the  curious  and  the  learned."  Milner,  how- 
ever, has  doubtless  found  the  true  key  to  unlock  the 
difficulty.  Even  so  early  as  the  days  of  Cyprian,  in  the 
third  century,  this  learned  Episcopal  historian  tells  us 
' '  the  ideas  of  Episcopacy  were  too  lofty — they  had  in- 
sensibly grown  with  the  increase  of  superstition."*  If 
this  were  so  at  that  early  period,  we  can  easily  conceive 
to  what  a  bad  eminence  "  the  ideas  of  Episcopacy  "  had 
attained  in  the  three  following  centuries,  and  after  that 
what  gigantic  stature  they  would  reach  in  the  middle 
ages  under  the  dominion  of  "  the  man  of  sin."  In  the 
fifth  century,  according  to  the  Episcopal  Bingham,  the 
single  diocese  of  Theodoret  comprised  eight  hundred 
parishes.  The  same  learned  writer  proves  from  Chrysos- 
tom,  who  lived  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century 
and  beginning  of  the  fifth,  that  it  was  a  common  prac- 
tice to  baptize  (immerse)  both  men  and  women  stark 
naked !  The  same  indecent  superstition  is  clearly  estab- 
lished by  several  other  writers.  One  main  part  of  the 
business  of  the  deaconesses  was  to  "  assist  at  the  baptism 
of  (naked)  women,"  "  that  no  indecency  might  be  com- 
mitted !"  Besides,  the  baptisteries  were  commonly  di- 
vided into  two  apartments  for  the  difierent  sexes.  Let 
this  suffice  among  numerous  similar  disgusting  examples. 
Superstition,  fanaticism  and  prelacy  grew  together  and 
walked  hand  in  hand  in  loving  embrace. 

2.  Although  the  lordly  supremacy  and  princely  au- 
thority of  the  bishops  grew  rapidly  in  the  general  de- 
cline of  primitive  piety,  many  proofs  remain  of  the  early 
existence  of  a  very  different  state  of  things.  For  ex- 
ample, Clement  of  the  first  century,  claimed  by  Papists 
to  have  been  a  Pope,  and  by  High  Chui-chmen  as  "  the 
bishop  of  Rome,"  in  addressing  the  Corinthian  church, 
how  does  he  approach  that  disorderly  people  ?  As  "  the 
Vicar  of  Christ?"  As  the  Head  of  the  universal  church, 
the  centre  of  unity,  and  even  the  great  Bishop  of  the 
chief  city  of  the  empire  ?  No  such  thing.  Hear  him : 
"The  cimrch  of  God  which  is  at  Rome  to  the  church  at 
^Cent.  Ill,  vol.  1,  207. 


192  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Corinth,  &c."  "Let  us  honor  those  who  are  set  over 
us."  "Blessed  are  those  presbyters  (or  elders)  who 
having  finished  their  course,  &c."  "  Let  the  flock  of 
Christ  be  in  peace  with  the  presbyters  (elders)  who  are 
set  o  ver  it."  Not  a  whisper  about  "  the  chief  pastor,"  &c., 
&c.  At  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  as  Dr. 
Barton,  Professor  at  Oxford,  admits,  the  very  term  "  dio- 
cese" was  not  known;  "though,"  he  adds,  "there  may 
have  been  instances  where  the  care  of  more  than  one  con- 
gregation was  commitled  to  a  single  bishop."  "The 
name,"  he  says,  "which  was  generally  applied  to  the 
flock  of  a  single  pastor,  was  one  from  which  our  word 
parish  is  derived,  which  signified  his  superintendence 
over  the  inhabitants  of  a  particular  place."*  "At  the 
period  we  are  now  considering  (the  third  century),"  adds 
Dr.  Burton,  a  bishop's  diocese  was  more  analogous  to  a 
modern  parish,  and  such  was  the  name  it  bore.  Each 
parish  had,  therefore,  its  own  bishop,  Avith  a  varying 
number  of  presbyters  (elders)  or  priests  and  deacons.f 
So,  also,  Ignatius  of  the  second  century,  in  the  epis- 
tles imputed  to  him,  writes  to  the  Ephesians,  Smyrnians 
and  Philadelphiaus.  How  does  he  address  them  ?  Does 
he  copy  the  style  in  Avhich  the  Lord  Jesus  commanded 
the  Apostle  John  to  approach  these  same  churches? 
Rev.  3 :  2,  S.  "  Write  to  the  angel  of  the  church,  &c.," 
i.  e.,  say  High  Churchmen,  "  to  the  diocesan  bishop 
of  each  several  church '!"  Hoav  does  this  "  companion 
of  the  Apostles"  express  himself?  "Ignatius  to  the 
church  which  is  at  Ephesus,"  "at  Philadelphia,"  "at 
Smyrna,"  and  even  "at  Eome,"  Avhere  was  the  throne  of 
"the  Vicar  of  Christ,"  the  Pope!  Is  not  the  presump- 
tion a  fair,  a  strong,  I  had  almost  said  an  irresistible  one, 
that  there  Avas  no  such  diocesan  "angel"  at  either  place? 
On  High  Church  principles,  this  departure  from  the 
divine  pattern  delivered  to  the  Apostle  John,  is  certain- 
ly very' remarkable!  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
official  character  of  "  the  apocalyptic  angel,"  on  the  Pres- 
byterian theory  the  difticulty  vanishes —whether  he  is 
viewed  as  a  messenger  betAveeu  the  inspired  Apostle  and 

*Hist  Christian  Church,  p.  179. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  2G3. 


T(iXATiAx  Ei'isTi,F.s  F()i!(ii-:i!ii:s. 

churches,  or  as  more  probably  the  pastor  of  each  cou- 
gregation. 

3.  The  very  limited  number  and  size  of  the  authentic 
records  of  the  first  and  second  centuries — the  fact  also, 
that  their  testimony  on  these  topics  is  always  indirect 
and  circumstantial,  and  the  further  fact  tliat  tlio  most 
eminent  scholars  often  differ  greatly  as  to  the  real  reading 
and  rendering  of  certain  passages — all  tend  to  make 
their  testimony  not  the  most  certain. 

Wo  are  thus  driven  to  the  necessity  of  gathering  the 
then  existing  state  of  the  church  rather  from  occasional 
hints,  tlian  from  express  deliverances.  Of  the  ecclesias- 
tical literature  of  the  second  century,  for  example,  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius  originally,  or  when  first  discover- 
ed (i.  e.  in  the  16th  century),  numbering  fifteen,  not 
to  speak  of  an  additional  one  from  the  Virgin  Mary, 
addrpssed  to  Ignatius  himself,  are  now  acknowledged 
by  all  scholars  to  have  baen  more  than  half  sheer  forger- 
ies !  The  seven  shorter  epistles,  most  Prelatists  strenu- 
ously contend  are  authentic  and  genuine.  The  Christian 
Observer,  however,  well  known  as  the  English  advocate 
of  Episcopacy  in  its  milder  forms,  candidly  admits  that 
six  of  these  seven  Ignatian  epistles  "  will  not  be  alleged 
by  any  capable  and  candid  advocate  for  primitive  Ej^is- 
copacy  without  great  hesitation— by  many  they  will  be 
entirely  rejected."  *  This  writer  says  "  he  does  not 
insinuate  that  the  whole  of  the  six  is  a  forgery" — "  but," 
he  adds,  of  the  particular  passages  which  affect  the 
present  dispute,  "  there  is  not  a  sentence  which  I  would 
venture  to  allege.  The  language,  at  the  earliest,  is  that 
of  the  fourth  century."  More  than  this.  No  intelligent 
Protestant  can  read  these  seven  Ignatian  epistles 
without  feelings  of  repulsion — I  had  almost  said  of 
disgust.  Amid  much  that  is  just  and  true,  because  the 
plain  sentiment  of  the  Scriptures,  there  is  a  large  and 
obvious  interpolation  of  error  and  superstition,  indicating 
with  unerring  certainty,  in  the  language  of  Dean  Swift 
describing  the  contents  of  the  uiittcrs  during  a  shower 
in  London,  "  what  place  they  conu!  ii'oui  by  their  sight 
and  smell." 

v., I.  1 1,  ,,.72:!. 


Jill  JIkjii  Cjruc  II  Ki'iscoi'Ac  V. 


To  exhibit  this  subject  in  its  true  light,  as  well  as 
to  show  how  far  distiuguished  scholars  differ  in  their 
reading  or  translations  of  parts  of  the  Epistles  of  Ig- 
natius, we  present  the  following  contrast.  The  first, 
or  left  column,  is  the  rendering  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury.'"  The  right,  is  that  of  Professor  Kiilen,  in 
his  recent  work,  "The  Ancient  Church."  I 


Presbyterian. 

There  was  hidden  from  the 
ruler  of  this  world  the  virginity 
of  Mary  and  the  birih  of  our 
Lord,  and  the  mysteries  of  the 
shont,  which  were  done  in  the 
quietness  of  God  by  means  of 
the  star,  and  here  by  the  mani- 
festation of  the  Son,  magic 
hc<'an  to  be  dissolved. 


Epismpal. 

Now  the  virginity  of  Mary, 
and  lie  who  was  born  of  her, 
were  kept  secret  from  the  prince 
of  this  world,  as  was  also  the 
death  of  our  Lord:  three  of  the 
mysteries  the  most  spoken  of 
(in  tlie  margin,  mysteries  of 
Twise,)  througho\it  the  world, 
yet  done  in  secret  by  God.  How 
then  was  our  Saviour  manifest- 
ed to  the  world  ?  A  star  shone 
in  heaven  beyond  all  the  other 
stars.  *  *  *  *  Hence,  all  the 
power  of  magic  became  dissolv- 
ed, and  every  bond  of  wicked- 
ness waa  destroyed. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  decide  which  of  these  is  the 
more  correct  and  elegant  rendering — since  both  are 
about  equally  instructive  and  cdifjnng!  That  these 
smaller  Epistles  of  Ignatius  have  been,  to  say  the  least, 
greatly  corrupted  by  the  channel  through  which  they 
have  descended  to  us,  is  easily  demonstrated.  Could 
that  pious  father  who  had  conversed  with  some  of  the 
Apostles,  have  uttered  such  puerile  stuff  as  the  following : 
"  Ye  are  drawn  up  on  high  b}'  the  cross  of  Christ,  as 
by  an  engine,  using  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  rope,  your 
faith  being  3'our  support."  Or  as  Dr.  Killen  ren- 
ders the  words  :  "  Ye  are  raised  on  high  by  the  en- 
gine of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  the  cross  ;  and  ye  are 
drawn  by  the  rope  wliicli  is  tlic  Holy  Ghost,  and  your 
pulley  is  your  faith."  Can  any  person  in  his  right  mind 
receive  the  foUnwiii'j;  a<  unli/ )i(d  inspired?    "  The  wore 


Calvin  on  Ignatian  ErisTLE.s.  195 


any  one  sees  his  bishop  silent,  the  more  let  him  revere  him." 
"  I  have  received  the  pattern  of  your  love  in  your 
bishop,  whose  very  look  is  instructive."  *  Yet  of  this  sort 
of  teaching  we  are  told  "  a  more  admirable  appendix 
to  the  pure  word  of  God  *  *  *  cannot  be  conceived  !"f 
These  and  numerous  similar  passages  have  led  some  of 
the  most  judicious  moderns  to  reject  all  the  Ignatian 
epistles  as  forgeries.  Of  the  eight  larger  ones  Calvin 
felt  constrained  to  say,  "  there  is  nothing  more  abomi- 
nable than  the  trash  which  is  in  circulation  under  the 
name  of  Ignatius.J  And  Dr.  Killen  does  not  hesitate 
to  declare  the  whole  spurious,,  and  their  real  author 
"an  anti-evangelical  formalist,  a  puerile  boaster,  a 
dreaming  mystic  and  a  crazy  fanatic."  §  Even  Arch- 
bishop Usher  greatly  doubted  the  genuineness  of  one  of 
the  seven,  that  to  Folycarp.  Salmasius,  Blondel  and 
Dail lie  pronounce  them  spurious. 

4.  But  we  cannot  enter  at  large  into  this  controversy. 
Lest,  however,  it  should  again  be  said,  as  heretofore,  tliat 
our  objections  to  these  Epistles  originate  in  their  very 
favorable  testimony  to  Prelacy,  I  will  endeavor  briefly 
to  analyze  their  revelations  on  the  main  topic  now  under 
discussion. 

First.  Do  these  seven  epistles  cleai-ly  teach  "  the 
universal  prevalence  of  an  order  of  bishops,  distinct  from 
preaching  presbyters,  and  superior  to  them  ?"  Admit 
that  in  addressing  a  particular  church,  the  writer  speaks 
of  their  "  bishop,  presbyters  and  deacons."  This  no 
more  proves  the  existence  of  a  prelatical  or  diocesan 
bishop  in  such  church,  than  the  same  three  classes  of 
church  officers  prove  the  same  to  be  taught  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Confession  of  Faith.  "  The  ordinary  and  per- 
petual officers  in  the  church  are  bishops,  ruling  elders, 
i.  e.  presbyters,  and  deacons. "|| 

Again,  "  to  the  church  which  is  at  Smyrna,"  Ignatius 
is  made  to  say  :  "  Follow  the  bishop,  all  of  you,  even 

*E;piptlcs  to  Ephcs.  and  Trallians,  sees.  9  and  103. 
fllook's  Church  Dirti.iiiniv. 
1  TiiPt.,  Book  I,  chap.  IS,  sec.  29. 
i!  Aiicieiil  Church,  p.  414. 


196 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


a3  Jesus  Christ  the  Father."  But  he  instantly  adds, 
"  and  the  presbytery  (or  eldership)  as  the  Apostles." 

Such  authors  and  editors  as  Dr.  Wainwright  can 
discover  here  the  superior  "  order  "  of  bishops,  *  but 
surely  "  to  follow  the  presbytery  as  the  inspired  Apostles," 
is  equivalent  to  following  them  as  God  the  Father — for 
the  Apostles  spake  as  "  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  "I 
salute  your  very  worthy  bishop,"  he  adds,  "and  your 
venerable  presbytery."  "  Be  subject  to  your  bishop  as 
to  the  man  of  God,  and  so  likewise  to  the  presbytery" 
(or  eldership).  "Obey,"  he  again  says,  "your  bishop  and 
the  presbytery  (or  eldership ;  with  an  entire  affection." 
"  Hearken  unto  the  bishop" — "  submit  to  your  bLshop 
with  your  presbyters  and  deacons."  Except  the  foolish 
extravagance  of  language  in  part  of  these  extracts,  no 
Presbyterian  would  object  to  their  counsel ;  it  will  re- 
require  "  optics  sharp,  1  ween,"  to  find  here  the  "distinct 
and  superior  order  of  diocesan  bishops."  Again,  we 
read — "  Let  all  reverence  the  deacons  as  Jqsus  Christ, 
and  the  bishop  as  the  Father,  and  the  presbyters  as  the 
sanhedrim  of  God  and  the  college  of  the  Apostles."f 
Here  the  deacons  are  put  first,  but  whether  the  reverence 
due  to  the  three  classes  is  designed  to  hav3  three  degrees 
we  cannot  tell.  To  the  Magnesians  he  says :  "  See  that 
ye  all  reverence  one  another." 

Second.  Do  these  Ignatian  epistles  clearly  teacb  that 
in  all  cases  when  a  presbyter  was  elevated  to  "  the  order  " 
of  bishops,  said  presbyter  received  a  new  and  distinct 
ordination  f  The  term  "  order,"  as  used  in  this  discus- 
sion, is  nowhere  found  in  these  epistles.  Xeither  is  the 
word  "  ordain,"  or  "  ordination."  This  is  so  obviously 
tlie  truth,  that  in  the  extended  "  Index"  to  the  transla- 
tion by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  these  heads  are 
entirely  wanting!  Is  not  this  absolute  silence  very 
significant  ?  If  as  Dr.  Wamwright  teaches,  "  the  three 
orders  were  received  from  the  Apostles  in  fulfilment  of 
many  propiiecies  of  the  Holy  Spirit" — "  a  portion  of  the 
divine  counsel  and  scheme  for  the  salvation  of  sinners," 
yea,  "  A  type  also  and  present  figure  of  the  most  Holy 

Notes  on  Episcopacy,  p.  109. 
t  Epist.  to  the  Trallians,  sec.  III. 


Extravagant  Notions  of  Pkelacy. 


197 


Trinity" — "  so  absolutely  necessary,  that  those  saiuts 
and  martyrs  (Ignatius  for  example)  could  as  hardly 
have  set  tlieniselves  to  contemplate  a  religion  without 
Oirist,  as  a  church  without  (prelatical)  bishops  ;"*  if,  I 
repeat,  anything  so  nearly  approaching  to  blasphemy 
had  ever  entered  tlie  mind  of  this  writer,  would  his 
seven  epistles  have  contained  no  sucli  term  as  "  order," 
"  ordain,"  "  ordination  ?"  Let  him  believe  it  who  can  ! 
Yet  we  are  assured  that  in  these  epistles  all  the  three 
orders  are  clearly  and  exactly  distinguished."! 

Third.  Do  these  epistles  ever  intimate,  even  in  the 
most  distant  manner,  that  the  right  to  ordain  with  the 
imposition  of  hands  belongs  exclusively  to  "  the  order 
of  bishops?"  This  is  answered  in  the  preceding  remarks. 
We  admit  with  the  judicious  Hooker,  that  "it  is  God 
that  maketh  bishops,"  i.  e.,  in  the  New  Testament  sense; 
and  "  that  the  Christian  fraternity  standeth  bound  to 
obey  them."  But  if  the  divine  right  of  ordination  was 
vested  exclusively  in  "  the  order  of  bishops,"  and  all 
ordination  by  presbyters  was  false  and  spurious,  a  mere 
mockery,  the  Ignatian  epistles  are  certainly  silent  on 
the  whole  subject.  We  are  expressly  taught,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  "  the  deacon  is  subject  to  the  presbytery 
(not  only  to  the  bishop)  as  to  the  law  of  Jesus  Christ" 
— that  "  the  presbyters  preside  in  the  place  of  the  coun- 
cil of  the  Apostles  " — which  presbyters  we  are  required 
to  "  reverence  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God  and  the  college 
of  the  Apostles  "■ — and  "to  follow  as  the  Apostles,"  &c. 
Can  any  unprejudiced  person  seriously  put  on  such 
passages  as  these  the  High  Church  construction,  viz., 
that  tlie  order  of  bishops  alone  are  empowered  to  ordain 
to  the  ministry  of  preaching  the  gospel  and  administer- 
ing the  sacraments  ?  The  same  expressive  silence  is  also 
observed  in  these  epistles  as  to  the  exclusive  right  of 
"  the  bishop "  to  administer  confirmation.  Ignatius, 
whoever  he  was,  appears  to  have  known  nothing  about 
it!  Yet  Dr.  Wainwright  speaks  of  "the  testimony  of 
those  who  had  set  at  the  feet  of  the  Apostles  (including 
Ignatius)  as  unequivocal  and  decisive,  believed  in  all 

*  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  p.  357. 
^  Dr.  Hook's  Church  Dictionary,  p.  216. 
18 


198  High  Church  Eplscopacy. 


lands,  and  as  unquestionable  truth" — i.  e.,  unquestion- 
able Prelacy ! 

Fourth.  Do  these  Ignatian  epistles  teach  in  "  the 
jilainest  terms"  the  existence  of  "  bishops  having  under 
their  government  a  number  of  congregations  with  their 
pastors" — in  a  word,  the  prevalence  of"  diocesan  epis- 
copacy ?" 

(1.)  If  Ignatius  meant  by  the  term  "bishop,"  the 
spiritual  governor  of  many  pastors  and  congregations, 
could  he  have  represented  them  as  "  coming  together  in 
one  place?"  Hear  him  :  "  For  if  the  prayer  of  one  or 
two  be  of  such  force,  how  much  more  powerful  shall 
that  of  the  bishop  and  the  whole  church  be.  He,  therefore, 
that  does  not  come  together  into  the  same  place  with  it,  is 
proved  and  has  already  condemned  himself."  Again : 
"  For  when  ye  meet  fully  together  in  the  same 
place,  &c.," — "  that  ye  all  by  name  come  together  in 
common,  in  one  place" — "  obeying  your  bishop  and  the 
presbytery  with  entire  affection."  Again  :  "Being  cojie 
TOGETHER  INTO  THE  SAME  PLACE,  have  One  common 
pirayer,  one  supplication."  Again :  "  But  come  all 
together  into  the  same  place,  with  an  undivided  heart." 
Apply  this  language  to  any  prelatical  diocese  in  Penn- 
sylvania, and  it  evidently  enjoins  an  utter  impossibility. 
But  suppose  that  the  writer  is  speakiug  of  a  Presbyte- 
rian bishop,  i.  e.,  a  pastor  of  a  single  parish,  and  all  is 
plain.  Surely  it  needs  no  proof  that  those  who  thus 
worshipped  in  one  assembly,  were  not  "  the  eight  hundred 
congregations  "  of  one  diocese !  Nor  similar  to  the  pre- 
sent "  Diocese  of  Virginia,"  with  its  million  and  a  half 
of  population,  and  fifty  thousand  square  miles  of  terri- 
tory ! 

(2.)  In  like  manner,  the  Ignatian  parish  is  commanded 
to  unite  "  in  one  common  prayer  " — "  breaking  one  and 
the  same  bread  " — in  other  words,  to  unite  together  in 
the  Lord's  supper.  Is  this  ever  done  in  a  modern  Epis- 
copal diocese  ? 

(3.)  These  epistles  represent  the  bishop  as  present  with 
the  flock  in  all  ordinary  acts  of  public  worship.  Thus  : 
"  Wheresoever  the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the 
people  (or  multitude)  also  be."    Again,  we  read  of  "  the 


Duties  of  Ignatian  Bishops.  991 


rayer  of  the  bishop  and  the  whole  church  " — "  he  that 
063  not  come  together  in  the  same  place  is  proud,"  &c. 
Again :  "  Neither  do  ye  anything  without  your  bishop 
and  presbyters  " — "  but  being  come  together  in  the  same 
place,  have  one  common  prayer  " — "  wherefore  come  ye 
all  together  as  uuto  one  temple  of  God,  as  to  one  altar," 
or  communion  table.  This  is  very  intelligible,  if  inter- 
preted of  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation.  But  how 
could  the  Bishops  of  Pennsylvania  obey  such  counsel  as 
this  ?  Do  the  Episcopalians  of  the  city  of  Erie,  for  ex- 
ample, "  come  together  with  their  bishop  and  the  churches 
of  Pittsburgh?"  Is  there  a  "diocese"  in  the  world  at 
the  present  day,  where  such  union  is  possible? 

(4.)  But  to  place  the  question  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt,  these  Ignatian  epistles  proceed  to  describe  at 
large  the  qualifications  and  duties  of  a  primitive  bishop. 
"  Let  nothing  be  done,"  Ignatius  says  to  bishop  Poly- 
carp,  "  without  thy  hioioledge  and  consent."  Again  : 
*'He  that  does  anything  without  his  (the  bishop's) 
knowledge,  ministers  unto  the  devil" — or  "worships 
the  devil."  This  is  the  general  rule.  Let  us  look  at 
the  application.  Igaatius  says  to  Polycarp  :  "  Let  your 
assemblies  be  more  foil ;  inquire  into  all  by  name." 
Polycarp's  diocese  seems  not  to  have  been  very  exten 
sive!  What  folly  in  any  person  of  sense,  to  exhort 
Bishop  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania,  for  example,  to  "  in- 
quire into  all  by  name  .'"  He  might  as  well  counsel  him 
to  inquire  into  the  place  of  the  birth  of  all  the  people  of 
his  diocese  ;  and  to  give  the  precise  stature  in  feet  and 
inches  of  each  of  them ! 

Again :  "  Let  not  the  widows  be  neglected  " — "  over- 
look not  the  men  and  maid-servants."  We  should  like 
to  inspect  a  catalogue  of  the  names  of  "  the  men  and 
maid-servants  "  in  Pennsylvania,  prepared  by  our  bish- 
ops, to  say  nothing  of  the  widows  and  other  poor  and 
destitute  persons !  The  pastor  of  a  single  congregation 
might  perform  such  a  work  in  a  Presbyterian  diocese — 
but  what  prelatical  bishop  either  would  or  could  do  it  ? 
Yet  Ignatius  exhorts  the  bishop  of  his  day  to  "  inquire 
into  all"  (not  only  "the  widows  and  servants "),  "by 
name."    More  than  this — "marriage  (was)  not  to  be 


200  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


made  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  bishop."* 
"It  becomes  all  such  as  are  married,  whether  men  or 
women,  to  come  together  with  the  consent  of  the  bishop, 
so  that  their  marriage  may  be  according  to  godliness, 
and  not  in  lust."  This  complicates  the  matter  still 
more.  Apply  this  direction  to  the  dioceses  of  Pennsyl- 
vani — suppose  "  a  man-servant  and  maid-servant  "  in 
the  city  of  Erie  wish  to  marry.  Of  course  they  mast 
post  off  to  Pittsburgh  to  get  "the  consent"  of  their 
bishop!  This  is  tbe  Ignatian  method  to  have  godly 
marriages,  "not  in  lust."  But  it  would  be  simply  an 
impossibility  that  Bishop  Kerfoot's  "  consent "  should 
be  sought  and  obtained  in  all  such  examples.  The  un- 
avoidable inference  is,  according  to  Ignatius,  that  most 
of  the  marriages  in  the  Dioceses  of  Pennsylvania,  and  in- 
deed throughout  the  United  States,  are  not  of  the  primi- 
tive sort,  because  "  without  the  knowledge  and  consent 
of  the  bishop !!" 

In  view  of  such  palpable  evidence  as  this,  it  is  not 
surprising  to  hear  Bishop  Stillingfleet  say :  "  In  all 
those  thirty-five  testimonies  produced  of  Ignatius'  epis- 
tles, I  can  meet  with  but  one  which  is  brought  to  prove 
the  least  semblance  of  an  institution  of  Christ  for  Episco- 
pacy ;  and  if  I  be  not  much  deceived,  the  sense  of  that 
place  is  clearly  mistaken,  too."  "  So  that  we  see,"  he 
adds,  "that  Ignatius  himself  cannot  give  a  doubting 
mind  satisfaction  of  the  divine  institution  of  bishops. "t 

Such  writers  and  editors  as  Dr.  Wainwright  can  see 
in  these  epistles  of  Ignatius  "  enough  to  convince  all 
(of  the  divine  origin  of  Prelacy)  except  those  whom  his 
(Ignatius')  judgment  will  be  found  to  exclude  from  the 
communion  of  saints."  Dr.  W.  and  his  brethren  may 
continue  to  cherish  the  pleasing  fallacy,  "that  the  ques- 
tion of  church  government  is  settled  by  these  epistles, 
and  that  this  is  a  truism,"  i.  e.,  too  plain  to  be  proved  !t 
But  it  is  very  remarkable,  that  in  citing  from  Ignatius 
what  they  regard  as  entirely  demonstrative  proof  in 
their  favor.  Dr.  Wainwright  and  the  author  which  he 
edits,  carefully  exclude  all  this  testimony  about  "  inquir- 

*  Archbishop  of  Canterbury's  translation  of  Ignatius. 

t  Irenicum,  pp.  334,  335. 

X  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  pp.  109-113. 


No  Distinct  Orders  of  Ministers.  201 


ing  into  all  by  name,"  "the  widows,"  "  men  and  maid- 
servants," "marriage,"  "the  church  meeting  with  the 
bishop  iu  one  and  the  same  place,  having  one  prayer, 
&c. !"  If  they  were  to  quote  these  passages,  their 
"truism"  would  vanish.  Their  argument  would  open 
people's  eyes. 

But  it  is  alleged  that  Ignatius  counsels  submission 
"  to  the  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons  ;"  and  thus  re- 
cognizes "  these  three  orders  as  of  divine  appointment  "* 
— or,  as  Bingham  expresses  it,  "  he  speaks  of  bishops, 
presbyters  and  deacons  as  distinct  degrees  in  the  church, 
and  the  two  latter  as  subordinate  to  the  flrst.t"  But 
this  is  going  a  little  too  fast.  Admit  that  he  speaks  of 
three  classes  of  church  officers,  what  proof  is  there  that 
he  regarded  the  first  as  diocesan  bishops,  and  the  second 
as  an  inferior  order  ?  Are  these  writers  ignorant  of  the 
fact  that  every  fully  organized  Presbyterian  church  has 
its  bishop,  its  presbyters  (or  elders)  and  deacons  ?  Do 
they  not  know  that  the  bishop  (or  pastor)  is  the  president 
of  the  eldership  (or  jjarochial  presbytery),  and  that  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  one  of  the  apostolic  fath- 
ers exhorts  the  flock  of  Christ  to  be  in  peace  with  the 
elders  (presbyters)  that  are  set  over  iif  Do  they  not 
know  that  Justin  Martyr,  of  the  same  period  with  Igna- 
tius, uses  similar  language  of  one  whom  he  calls  "  the 
president  of  Christian  assemblies  ?" 

(5.)  But  as  to  the  "  distinct  degrees  in  the  church," 
which  Bingham  claims  as  clearly  proved  by  these  Igna- 
tian  epistles,  as  also  the  order  of  presbyters  as  "  subor- 
dinate to  the  bishops,"  let  us  look  at  a  few  particulars. 

Does  the  "full  and  evident  proof"  consist  in  the  ar- 
1  angement  of  the  titles  bishop,  priest,  &c.  ?  But  in  this, 
Ignatius  is  not  uniform.  In  one  place,  at  least,  he  puts 
'■  the  deacons"  at  the  head  of  the  list;J  so  that  it  reads, 
"  deacons,  bishop  and  presbyters  !  "§ 

Again :  Does  the  "  evident  proof"  consist  in  his  re- 
quiring "  reverence  to  be  paid  to  the  bishop,  as  to  the 

*  Dr.  Wainwright's  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  p.  13. 
tOrigines  Ecclesiasticre,  vol.  1,  p.  53. 
i  To  the  Trallians,  sec.  3. 

'i  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John,  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians,  leaves  out  the  bishop  entirely,  and  mentions  only 
"  presbyters  and  deacons  !" 


202  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Father?"  But  in  the  same  sentence  he  enjoins  "  to  rev- 
erence the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ." 

Again :  Is  "  every  one,  especially  the  presbyters,"  en- 
joined to  "  refresh  the  bishop,  to  the  honor  of  the  Father, 
of  Jesus  Clirist  and  of  the  Apostles  "f  But  is  this  more  and 
better  than  "  to  reverence  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ ;" 
and  "  the  presbyters  (elders)  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God 
and  the  college  of  the  apostles  f  Is  refreshing  the  bishop 
'•  to  the  honor  of  the  apostles  "  stronger  proof  of  "  supe- 
rior order  or  degree  in  the  church,"  than  "  fleeing  to 
the  apostles  as  to  the  presbytery  of  the  church."* 

Further:  Does  "this  full  and  evident  proof"  of  a  "su- 
perior order  of  bishops  "  consist  in  the  exhortation  "  to 
obey  the  bishop,"  "  submit  to  the  bishop,"  "  follow  the 
bishop,"  and  be  "  subject  to  the  bishop  ?"  But  is  this 
stronger  or  better  proof  of  superiority  than,  "be  subject 
to  your  presbyters  as  to  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ " — 
'•  obeying  the  presbytery  with  entire  affection  " — "  follow 
the  presbytery  as  the  apostles  ?" 

Still  further :  Does  this  "  demonstrative  proof"  that 
-  ■  presbyters  are  of  a  lower  order  than  bishops  "  consist 
in  such  passages  as  these : — "  Neither  do  ye  anything- 
without  your  bishop  " — "  continue  inseparable  from  your 
bishop  " — "  do  nothing  without  the  bishop  ?"  But  in 
the  same  sentence  it  is  added — "  Do  nothing  without 
your  presbyters."  Again  :  "  He  that  does  anything  with- 
out bishop  and  presbyters  and  deacons,  is  not  pure  in  his 
conscience." 

Ignatius,  moreover,  counsels  the  church  of  Smyrna 
thus  :  "  Labor  with  one  another ;  contend  together,  run 
together,  suffer  together,  sleep  together  and  rise  together." 
If  that  venei'able  church  had  been  composed  entirely  of 
shaven  monks,  this  might  have  been  sensible  admoni- 
tion. But  whether  such  a  practical  unity  would  have 
been  desirable  under  all  circumstances,  may  admit  of 
considerable  doubt. 

We  have  thus  passed  in  review  the  chief  passages 
from  the  Ignatian  epistles,  which  the  learned  prelatist 
Bingham  quotes  as  "  testimony  full  and  evident "  that 
"  the  order  of  bishops  always  was  owned  to  be  superior 

*Totlie  Philadelpliians,  sec.  5. 


Duties  of  Early  Presbyters.  205 


to  that  of  presbyters" — and  which  Dr.  Wainwright 
thinks  is  made  so  plain  as  to  be  incapable  of  stronger 
proof — in  other  words,  "a  truism!"  We,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  constrained  to  think  that  these  arguments 
demonstrate  nothing  so  clearly  as  the  extreme  credulity 
of  the  prelates  who  prop  their  cause  with  such  frivolous- 
testimony.  If  anything  further  may  properly  be  ad- 
duced on  so  very  plain  a  subject,  it  is  the  fact  that  as 
most  of  these  seven  epistles  are  addressed  to  particular 
churches,  so  we  find  each  church  furnished  with  its  bish- 
op, its  presbytery  (or  bench  of  elders)  and  deacons.  The 
presbyters  are  represented  as  always  present  with  the 
bishop  and  congregation,  and  as  being  equally  insepara- 
ble from  it.  Thus  to  every  altar  or  communion  table  there 
was  attached  one  bishop  and  his  prcbytery  ;  but  there  is 
no  evidence  in  these  epistles  that  these  presbyters  ever 
preached,  or  ministered  the  communion  separate  from 
the  bishop  or  pastor.  But  even  if  it  were  ever  so  plain 
that  presbyters  did  often  preach  and  administer  the 
sacraments,  this  would  be  in  entire  harmony  with  the 
Presbyterian  system.  There  were  in  the  primitive 
church,  as  all  know,  persons  regularly  ordained  who 
had  no  pastoral  charge,  but  were  the  assistants,  or  as 
prelatists  say,  the  curates,  of  the  bishop  or  pastor.  These 
were  not  bishops,  that  name  implying  a  pastoral  oversight.. 
But  they  were  assistant  presbyters.  But  how  to  recon- 
cile all  these  facts  with  the  prelatical  and  diocesan  the- 
ory of  bishops,  is  a  problem  which  we  decline  to  solve. 

The  facts  just  stated  also  explain  another  thing 
which  Prelatists  have  imagined  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
our  argument.  "  In  such  large  cities  as  Ephesus,  it  is 
said,  there  were  doubtless,  in  the  days  of  Ignatius,  very 
many  converts  to  Christianity,  and  probably  several 
large  congregations,  with  their  several  pastors.  How 
then  does  it  happen  that  Ignatius  addresses  one  of  these 
pastors  as  bishop,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  rest  ?" 
The  solution  is  easy.  "  The  only  bishop  then  known 
was  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation  or  parish.  That 
there  were  several  worshipping  assemblies  in  each  parish 
is  highly  probable  ;  for  then  the  edifices  which  we  call 
churches  were  unknown.  Chiustians  were  neither  able 
nor  permitted  to  erect  them,  and  therefore  separated 


204  High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


themselves  for  social  worship  into  as  many  private 
houses,  upper  chambers,  and  even  cellars  and  caves,  as 
might  be  needful  for  their  accommodation.  Still,  in  each 
city  or  town  they  were  considered  one  body,  and  had 
one  pastor,  one  communion  table,  a  common  place  of 
baptism,  &c.,  united  in  common  supplications."*  Thus 
they  considered  themselves  one  church,  and  to  serve  so 
large  a  body  of  people,  the  bishop  had  one  or  more 
assistauts,  who  though  presbyters,  and  some  of  them  or- 
dained to  preach,  baptize  and  administer  the  Lord's 
supper,  did  not  sustain  the  pastoral  relation  or  oversight 
— thus,  they  were  not  bishops.  These  facts  are  abundant- 
ly established  by  Ignatius  ;  they  are  assumed  as  indis- 
putable by  Stillingfleet  and  other  learned  and  candid 
Episcopal  authors.  They  render  perfectly  intelligible 
most  of  the  language  used  by  primitive  writers,  who 
must,  on  the  prelatical  or  diocesan  theory,  stand  con- 
victed of  uttering  sheer  nonseme.  Such  evidence  as  the 
foregoing  has  compelled  many  of  the  most  learned  Epis- 
copalians to  admit  with  Dr.  Burton.f  that  even  at  the 
commencement  of  the  third  century  "  each  parish  had  its 
own  bishop,  with  a  varying  number  of  presbyters  or 
priests  and  deacons  " — "  each  parish  a  bishop."  In  one 
of  the  three  dioceses  of  the  State  of  New  York,  there  are 
two  hundred  parishes  and  one  bishop.'X  Is  this  the  "truly 
primitive  and  apostolic  church  ?"  Does  it  bear  even  a 
distant  resemblance  to  "  the  church  of  the  first  three 
centuries  ?"§  How  absurd  would  many  of  the  Ignatian 
counsels  appear,  if  addressed  to  the  three  bishops  of 
Pennsylvania  ?  How  impracticable  must  those  directions 
be,  if  applied  to  the  fifty-two  bishojjs  in  the  United 
States,  having  under  their  inspection  some  twenty-seven 
hundred  parishes?  According  to  these  early  writers, 
Ignatius  and  others,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
should  have  at  least  two  thousand  bishops,  instead  of 
fifty-two. 
*  Biblical  Eepertory,  1830,  p.  56. 

t  Eegius  Professor  at  Oxford,  Hist.  Chris.  Church,  p.  179. 
i  Church  Almanac,  1874. 

'i  "Inquire  for  the  church  of  the  first  three  centuries  "—"  there 
must  be  identity  proven  satisfactorily."  Dr.  Van  Deusen,  pp. 
104,  136. 


Testimony  of  Several  Fathers.  205 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

DIFFICULTIES  IN  HARMONIZING  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  SEV- 
ERAL OTHER  EARLY  WRITERS  WITH  HIGH  CHURCH 
PRETENSIONS. 

We  have  dwelt  particularly  upon  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatms,  because  they  are  viewed  as  the  stronghold  of 
High  Church  Episcopacy.  If  the  very  citadel  proves 
to  be  so  rickety  and  unsafe  a  shelter,  what  confidence 
can  be  reposed  in  the  minor  dependencies  ? 

Of  the  writers  of  the  second  century  Papias  next 
claims  our  attention.  He  is  said  to  have  been  "  a  hearer 
of  the  Apostle  John  and  a  companion  of  Polycarp." 
Does  this  author  teach  the  doctrine  of  a  distinct  and 
superior  order  of  bishops,  invested  with  the  exclusive 
right  to  ordain  and  confirm,  and  with  the  government  of 
an  indefinite  number  of  churches  with  their  pastors? 
Does  he  teach  that  this  sort  of  Episcopacy  was  of  ex- 
clusive divine  origin,  and  was  so  regarded  by  the  whole 
primitive  church  ?    Let  us  inquire. 

I.  As  quoted  by  the  historian  Eusebius,*  Papias  speaks 
of  the  first  disciples  of  our  Lord  as  presbyters,  just  as 
the  Apostle  John  calls  himself  '"the  elder,"  thus:  "Ii 
I  met  with  one  who  had  conversed  with  the  presbyters, 
I  inquired  after  the  sayings  of  the  presbyters,  what  An- 
drew, Peter,  Philip,  Thomas  or  James  had  said,  what 
John,  or  Matthew  or  any  other  disciples  of  the  Lord 
were  wont  to  say,  &c."  We  may  safely  leave  to  every 
person  of  common  sense  to  decide  whether  this  passage 
teaches  High  Church  Episcopacy.  But  if  it  were  as 
express  as  its  advocates  could  desire,  there  would  still  be 
a  pretty  serious  obstacle  to  its  reception.  Eusebius  adds 
that  this  same  Papias  professed  to  have  "  received  by 
unwritten  tradition  from  the  disciples  of  our  Lord,  the 
doctrine  of  a  certain  millennium  after  the  resurrection, 
*Ecc.  Hist.,  p.  125. 


206         High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


and  of  a  corporeal  reign  of  Christ  on  this  earth,"  and 
"  sovie  other  matters  too  fabulous."*  Such  a  writer  cannot 
be  trusted  as  a  witness  to  any  facts  not  otherwise  sup- 
ported. But  in  calling  the  apostles  presbyters  (a  title 
by  the  way  which  both  Peter  and  John  assumef),  it  will 
scarcely  be  imagined  that  he  intended  to  express  any 
official  inferiority. 

II.  The  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  flourished 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  furnishes  but 
very  feeble  support  for  High  Churchism.  In  speaking 
of  "  the  place  where  the  brethren  are  assembled  for 
common  prayers,"  and  of  the  usual  forms  of  public 
worship,  he  says:  "Prayers  being  ended,"  "bread  and 
a  cup  of  water  and  wine  are  then  brought  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  brethren,X  and  he  receiving  them,"  "continues 
long  in  giving  thanks,"  "  and  the  whole  people  having 
expressed  their  assent,"  viz.,  "by  saying  amen,"  those 
who  are  called  among  us  deacons  give  to  those  who  are 
present  to  partaka  of  the  bread  and  wine,  mixed  with 
water,"  &c.,  &c.  Prelatists  strenuously  contend  that 
"  the  president  of  the  brethren,"  spoken  of  by  Justin, 
was  certainly  a  prelatical  bishop.  But  every  such  wor- 
shipping assembly  had  its  bishop  !  This  is  the  Presby- 
terian doctrine. 

Again,  says  Justin :  "  Upon  Sunday  all  who  live  in 
cities  or  in  the  countiy  ^-a^Aer  together  to  one  place,  and 
the  writings  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets  are  read," 
"  the  president  addresses  them  and  exhorts  them,"  "  we 
then  all  rise  together  and  pray,"  "bread  and  wine  mixed 
with  water  are  brought,  and  the  president  offers  prayers 
and  thanksgivings  according  to  his  ability,  and  the  peo- 
ple assent,  saying,  amen.  Those  who  are  wealthy  and 
willing,  contribute  as  they  are  severally  disposed,  and  it 
is  deposited  in  the  hands  of  the  president,  who  succors 

*Euseb.  Hist.,  p.  126. 
fl  Peter  5:  1;2  Johnl: 

X  The  Greek  term  used  by  Justin  for  "  president,''  TzposaTw; 
is  of  tlie  same  verb  translated  "over  you  in  the  Lord,"  (1  Thess. 
6:  12),  and  "the  elders  that  rule  well,"  1  Tim.  5:  17.  The 
Episcopal  Goode  says:  "They  were  overseers  (bishops)  of  their 
particular  flocks,  and  are  said  to  preside."  Eule  of  Faith,  vol.  2, 
p.  47. 


Succession  of  Presbyteks.  207 


orphans,  widows,  &c."  The  question  now  is,  was  this 
presiding  minister  who  took  the  lead  in  these  worship- 
ping assemblies,  the  pastor  of  each  congregation?  Or 
was  he  "  a  diocesan  bishop,"  a  member  of  "  a  superior 
order,"  with  many  congregations  and  presbyters  under 
his  control?  High  Churchmen,  blinded  by  prejudice, 
may  fancy  they  discover  in  such  statements  as  these  of 
Justin,  "a  striking  confirmation"*  of  their  views. 
Well  might  Milton  demand,  "  are  these  the  offices  only 
of  a  (prelatical)  bishop?  Or  shall  we  think  that  every 
congregation  where  these  things  were  done,  had  a  (pre- 
latical) bishop  among  them  ?" 

III.  IrenoEus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  who  flourished  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  is  our  next  witness.! 
"  We  can  enumerate,"  he  says,  "  those  who  were  con- 
stituted bishops  by  the  Apostles  in  the  churches,  and 
their  successors  even  to  us."  So  also  he  tells  us  of  "  the 
succession  of  bishops,"  "the  succession  of  the  church 
which  is  from  the  A  postles,"  "  the  bishops  to  whom  the 
Apostles  delivered  the  churches,  &c."  At  these  and 
similar  forms  of  speech,  the  High  Churchman  greatly 
rejoices !  What  can  more  clearly  establish  the  Episco- 
pal claims  than  "  the  testimony  of  this  reverend  saint 
and  martyr."!  But  our  prelatical  friends  are  common- 
ly in  too  great  a  hurry  to  reach  their  conclusions. 
What  Presbyterian  ever  doubted  that  "the  Apostles 
constituted  bishops  (i.  e.  pastors)  in  the  churches?"  "  that 
they  delivered  the  churches  to  these  as  their  successors  ?" 
The  only  question  is,  what  were  the  qualifications  and 
powers  of  these  scriptural  bishops  f  Were  they  diocesan 
bishops,  or  parochial  bishops?  Were  they  a  distinct 
"  order  "  from  presbyters  and  superior  to  them,  in  virtue 
of  their  ordination  ?  These  are  the  points  to  be  proved. 
Again:  What  will  High' Churchmen  do  with  such  pass- 
ages as  these :  "  The  apostolical  tradition  is  preserved 
in  the  churches  through  the  succession  of  the  presbyter/^," 
"  obey  those  presbyters  in  the  church  icho  have  succession, 

*  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  edited  by  Dr.  Wainwright,  p.  121. 

t  Milner  says,  "His  philosophy  *  *  *  *  darkened  some 
truths  of  Scripture — and  he  mixed  the  doctrine  of  Clirist  with 
human  inventions."    Ch.Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  139. 

t  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  p.  128. 


208  High  Church  Eplscopacy. 


as  we  have  shown,  from  the  Apostles ;  who,  with  the  suc- 
cession of  the  episcopate,  received  the  gift  of  truth  ;"  "  we 
ought  to  adhere  to  those  presbyters*  who  kept  the  Apos- 
tles' doctrine  and  together  with  the  order  of  the  presby- 
ierate,  show  forth  sound  speech.  Such  pjresbyters  the 
church  nourishes,  and  of  such  the  prophet  says,  '  I  will 
give  them  princes  in  peace  and  bishops  in  righteous- 
ness?'"  Thus  it  seems  plain  that "  the  bishops"  insti- 
tuted by  the  Apostles  as  their  "  successors,"  were  neither 
more  nor  less  than  i^resbyters,  who  are  also  styled  their 
"  successors." 

Further:  Admit  that  Irenieus  speaks  of  "the  episco- 
pate of  the  church  of  Rome,"  and  names  Linus,  Aua- 
cletus  and  others  as  having  succeeded  the  Apostles. 
What  does  all  this  prove  ?  Does  it  possess  the  weight 
of  a  feather  in  favor  of  prelacy  ?  Let  Irenaeus  himself 
explain  his  meaning.  In  his  epistle  to  Victor,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  he  says :  Those  presbyters  before  Soter,  who 
governed  the  church  which  thou  now  governest — did 
not  observe  it  "  {i.  e.  Easter,  on  the  day  in  which  Victor 
observed  it) — "  and  those  presbyters  who  preceded  you, 
though  they  did  not  observe  it  themselves,  &c."  And 
then  he  adds,  "  He  (i.  e.  Anicetus,  one  of  the  Roman 
bishops')  declared  to  Polycarp  that  the  custom  of  the 
presbyters  who  were  his  predecessors  should  be  retained," 
or  as  Eusebius  expresses  it,  "  Anicetus  said  (to  Poly- 
carp) that  he  was  bound  to  maintain  the  practice  (ob- 
serving Easter)  of  the  pjresbyters  before  him."t  "That 
this  testimony  concerning  the  character  and  authority 
of  jjresbyters  is  not  at  all  to  the  taste  of  High  Church- 
men, we  need  no  other  proof  than  this:  such  editors 
and  authors  as  Dr.  Wainwright  omit  it  altogether.  Dr. 
W.  does  not  quote  a  single  line  from  Irenseus  where 
presbyters  are  so  much  as  named  !J  Is  not  this  "  expres- 
sive silence?" 

*  Hippolytus,  a  disciple  of  Irena?us,  calls  him  (Irenaeus)  "  the 
blessed  presbyter."  Ref.  of  Heresy,  ch.  3S. 

f  Eccles.  Hist.,  Book  V.,  chap.  24.  So  in  writing  to  Florinus, 
Irenwus  speaks  of  certain  false  doctrine.s  which  "those  who  were 
jjres6.i//ers  before  us — those  who  had  walked  with  (he  Apostles  did 
not  deliver."  Nothing  about  an  "  order "  of  bishops  there. 
Milner,  Cent.  III. 

i  Xote.=  on  Episcop.icy,  pp.  127-l.S.S. 


Testimony  of  Victor  and  Clement.  209 


To  render  this  testimony  of  Irenseus  still  more  con- 
clusive—after he  had  been  bishop  of  Lyons  for  nine 
years,  he  was  sent  by  certain  eminent  persons  of  the 
churches  of  France  (Eusebius  calls  them  "  martyrs  ") 
on  a  mission  to  Eleutherus  of  Rome.  How  do  these 
martyrs  speak  of  him?  As  "  my  lord  bishop?"  or  as  a 
bishop  at  all  ?  Hear  them  :  "  We  have  requested  our 
brother  and  colleague  to  carry  this  epistle;"  "  we  would 
certainly  commend  him  among  the  first  as  a  presbyter  of 
the  churrh."*  And  in  referring  to  Polycarp,  in  his  epis- 
tle to  Florinus,  Irenreus  calls  him  "  that  holy  and  apos- 
tolical presbyter."  Nothing  appears  in  these  extracts 
about  Bishop  Polycarp  and  Bishop  Ireuseus.  The  rea- 
son was  that  the  highest  official  dignity  was  that  as- 
sumed by  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Johu,  simply  presbyter. 
If  the  term  bishop  was  sometimes  employed,  it  indicated 
only  the  pastoral  oversight  by  the  presbyters.  It  was 
the  title  of  labor  and  responsibility,  not  of  peculiar 
honor,  or  of  "a  superior  order."  Since  the  death  of  the 
Apostles,  Presbi/terian  parity  prevailed. 

IV.  Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  of  the  same  period,  in  a 
letter  to  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Vienna,  holds  the  following 
language :  "  Thy  holy  fraternity  were  taught  by  those 
presbyters,  who  had  seen  the  Apostles  in  the  flesh,  and 
governed  the  church  until  thy  time  " — "  therefore,  let 
thy  fraternity  write  to  the  presbyters  of  Gaul,  that  they 
observe  Easter  with  the  followei-s,  of  the  Apostles  and 
preachers  of  the  truth."  We  respectfully  submit  that 
to  write  thus  of  presbyters  as  "  governing  the  church," 
and  to  address  them  in  such  important  matters,  to  the 
neglect  of  "  the  superior  order "  of  bishops,  was  bad 
treatment  of  the  real  successors  to  the  apostolic  office  !! 

V.  Nor  does  the  testimony  of  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
who  lived  near  the  close  of  the  second  century,  give  any 
better  support  to  the  Prelatical  doctrine.  He  was  a  pres- 
byter of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  and  president  of  the 
celebrated  theological  seminary  in  tliat  city.  That  this 
father  "  cherished  a  deep  conviction  of  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  the  thre  '-fold  order  of  the  sacred  ministiy,"  pre- 

*  Eccl.  Hist.,  Book  V,  chap.  4. 

19 


210  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


latists  attempt  to  prove  thus :  "  He  speaks  of  the  innu- 
merable precepts  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  pertain  to 
bishops,  priests  (presbyters)  and  deacons."*  But  there 
are  two  objections  to  this  statement  of  the  argument. 
In  the  same  sentence  he  says  of  these  innumerable  pre- 
cepts of  Scripture,  "  and  some  pertain  to  uidows !" 
More  than  this,  while  we  admit  that  Clement,  in  another 
place,  does  speak  of  "  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons," 
in  the  passage  referred  to  he  inverts  the  order  and  writes 
it  "presbyters,  bishops,  deacons  and  widows !"'\  No 
doubt  the  Scripture  contains  directions  for  these  four 
classes  of  persons ;  but  it  may  be  well  questioned 
whether  a  mau  of  sense,  as  Clement  was,  would  thus 
jumble  the  three  orders  "  ordained  to  be  types  of  the 
celestial  hierarchy  !"| 

Again  :  Clement  was  &  presbyter,  nothing  more.  Yet  he 
sayg,  "  we  who  have  rule  over  the  churches,  are  shepherds 
or  pastors,  after  the  image  of  the  Good  Shepherd." 
Could  bishops  be  more  or  better  than  this  ?  And  in  the 
11th  chapter  of  his  Pedagogue  he  gives  the  power  of 
imposition  of  hands  to  presbyters :  "  On  whom  or  what 
will  the  presbyter  impose  his  hand?"  If  this  means  what 
is  now  called  confirmation,  which  is  very  doubtful,  it  is 
here  first  mentioned  in  the  records  of  antiquity,  and  be 
it  observed  it  is  by  "  the  hand  of  the  presbyter!"  At  the 
present  day,  it  belongs  exclusively  to  the  bishop  of  a 
diocese. 

Again:  In  several  places  Clement  omiti  entirely  the 
bhhops.  Thus — "  The  presbyters  are  intrusted  with  the 
dignified  ministry,  the  deacons  with  the  subordinate."^ 
In  reference  to  Paul's  directions  about  marriage,  1  Tim. 
5  :  1 4,  he  says:  "He  must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife 
only,  whether  he  he  presbyter  or  deacon,  or  layman,  if  he 
would  use  matrimony  aright."  "  What  can  they  say," 
adds  Clement,  "to  these  things,  who  inveigh  against 
marriage,  since  the  Apostle  enjoins  that  the  bishop  to  be 

*  Notes  on  Episcop.  bv  Dr.  Wainwright,  p.  133. 

t;Psedagog.,  Book  HI,  chap.  12. 

j  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  p,  134. 

?  ",The  dearoiis,"  he  says,  "maintain  a  .sfrnccni/c similitude,  the 
jn-cib'/ters  that  which  is  most  excellent." 


High  Churchmen  in  the  Clouds.  211 


set  over  the  church,  be  one  who  rules  well  his  own 
house."  Clement  appears  to  have  had  no  knowledge  of 
a  more  dignified  order  than  jyrei<byters — but  represents 
the  married  presbyter  as  the  real  bishop. 

But  there  is  still  one  passage  in  Clement  which  im- 
parts great  satisfaction,  not  to  say  triumph,  to  High 
Churchmen.  "  In  the  church  here,"  he  says,  "  I  think 
the  progressions  (or  promotions)  of  bishops,  presbyters 
and  deacons,  are  imitations  of  the  evangelical  glory." 
This  pa.ssage  indicates,  say  Prelatists,  that  Clement  had 
"  deep  and  au-ful  notions  of  the  three  orders."*  But  let 
us  look  a  little  further,  to  ascertain  what  he  means : 
"  These  men,"  he  adds,  "  being  taken  up  into  the  clouds, 
shall  first  serve  as  deacons,  and  then  shall  be  admitted 
among  the  presbyters,  according  to  the  progressions  in 
glory."  What  a  pity  Clement  neglected  to  add — "  and 
then  shall  be  advanced  among  the  highest  order  of  bish- 
ops !"  But  no !  he  says  no  such  thing  :  they  are  caught 
up  into  the  clouds,  serve  first  as  deacons  in  the  heavenly 
temple,  and  are  then  promoted  to  be  presbyters;  but 
never  ri.se  to  any  higher  order.  In  this  case,  then,  as  is 
quite  common  with  High  Church  logic,  it  limps  badly. 
Whether  Clement's  fanciful  notion  about  the  gradations 
in  the  future  world — "  in  the  clouds  " — be  ti'ue  or  false, 
it  is  evident  that  his  description  makes  hard  against 
High  Churchism.  We  have  not  the  slightest  objection 
to  the  elevation  of  these  High  Episcopalians,  provided 
their  exaltation  be  confined  to  "  the  clouds." 

VI.  Our  sixth  witness  is  the  Latin  father  Tertidlian, 
who  was  a  presbyter  of  Carthage,  in  Africa,  and  flour- 
ished at  the  close  of  the  second  and  first  quarter  of  the 
third  century — died  A.  D.  220. 

Thus  far,  the  testimony  of  the  early  writers  has  been 
clear.  But  now,  as  we  pass  to  the  third  century,  a  very 
obvious  change  begins  to  appear.  The  transition  state 
of  the  church,  of  which  Jerome  and  others  in  the  next 
age  speak  so  openly  and  instructively,  now  developes 
itself  "  Paulutim,"  says  Jerome,  "  by  little  and  little  " 
— certain  important  departures  from  scriptural  doctrine 

■•'  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  p.  101. 


212 


High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


and  practice,  "  instinctu  diaboli,"  were  introduced  ;  and 
the  early  buddings  of  prelatical  arrogance  and  corrup- 
tion show  themselves,  even  in  the  days  of  Tertullian. 
It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  the  Episcopal 
Milner  speaking  of  this  father  and  his  writings  in  no 
very  respectful  terms :  "  I  have  seldom  seen,"  he  says, 
"so  large  a  collection  of  tracts  containing  so  little  m&ttcr 
of  useful  instruction  " — "they  betray  the  same  sour, 
monastic,  harsh  and  severe  turn  of  mind."  "Super- 
stition, it  seems,  had  made  deep  inroads  into  Africa." 
"  He  (Tertullian)  disapproved,  at  least  after  his  separa- 
tion from  the  cliurch,  of  second  marriages,  and  called 
them  ADULTERY."*  Of  course  such  marriages  were 
especially  forbidden  to  clergymen.  Nor  was  Tertullian 
singular  in  this  matter.  Origen,  of  the  same  period, 
says  expressly  that  "  not  only  fornication,  but  a  second 
marriage  excluded  from  the  ecclesiastical  dignities ;  for 
neither  a  bishop,  nor  presbyter,  nor  deacon,  nor  widow, 
could  be  a  digamist."'\  These  and  similar  departures 
from  apostolic  simplicity  had  spread  widely  in  the 
church.  Even  Athanagoras  says :  "  A  second  marriage 
is  by  us  esteemed  a  specious  adulterj'." — Apology,  sec.  33. 
Of  the  rapid  increase  of  superstition  in  the  third  cen- 


baptism,  Tertullian  tells  us,  it  had  become  customarj'  to 
dip  the  person  three  times,  once  at  the  utterance  of  each 
of  the  divine  names — "nec  semel  sed  ter  ad  singula 
nomina."  Immersion  is  believed  to  have  been  the  more 
common  practice,  though  sprinkling  and  affusion  were 
considered  valid  forms.  But  even  laymen  were  author- 
ized in  certain  cases  to  baptize.  Tertullian  also  advised 
"  the  delay  of  baptism,  especially  in  the  case  of  little  chil- 
dren " — "  priBcipue  tameu  circa  parvulos."  But  his 
reason  for  this  counsel  was  a  pure  superstition — "  for 
why,"  he  asks,  "should  that  age  of  innocence  (innocens 
retas)  hasten  to  the  remission  of  sins'?"  "  Let  them  be- 
come Christians  when  they  are  able  to  know  Christ." 
But  it  was  in  the  next  century  that  we  have  full  and 

*  Milner,  Hist.,  vol.  1,  p.  141-2.  Tertullian  had  beccme  a 
Moiitanist. 

t  Hoiu.  17,  in  Inc.    Bingluini,  vol.  1,  ji.  49''. 


tury,  many  humili 


examples  might  be  adduced.  In 


Tertullian  not  High  Church. 


213 


definite  iaformation  of  the  shameless  practice  before 
alluded  to,  wheu,  as  Ambrose  says,  "  men,  women  and 
children  came  as  naked  to  the  font  as  they  come  into 
the  world."*  These  facts  may,  perhaps,  account  for  the 
usage  of  excluding  catechumens,  or  persons  under  Chris- 
tian instruction  for  membership  in  the  church,  from  wit- 
nessing "  the  administration  of  baptism,"  as  the  prelati- 
cal  Biiigh  im  tells  us.  But  we  are  still  left  in  the  dark 
as  to  the  reason  why  these  same  persons  were  "  not  allowed 
to  hear  or  use  the  Lord's  prayer,  until  a  little  before 
baptism!"  Nor  were  they  permitted  to  be  present  at 
the  ordination  of  presbyters,  nor  tlie  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  nor  suffered  to  learn  the  Creed,  or  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  nor  even  "  to  be  present  at  any 
prayers  in  tlie  church,  except  the  special  prayers  for  the 
catechumens !"  |  Such  was  the  fertile  soil  in  which  Pre- 
lacy, with  its  "  angelic  dignities,"  struck  deep  its  roots. 
We  have  now  reached  that  disastrous  twilight  of  degrad- 
ing superstition,  which  soon  closed  down  upon  the  world 
in  a  dismal  night  of  ages,  broken  by  only  a  few  glim- 
mering lights  at  distant  intervals.  With  these  necessary 
precautions,  let  us  look  at  the  testimony  of  Tertullian. 

It  is  of  little  advantage  to  the  cause  of  Prelacy  to 
quote  such  language  as  the  following  :  "  Let  them  (her- 
etics) produce  the  original  of  their  churches,  and  unfold 
the  line  of  their  bishops,  so  running  down  in  a  continued 
succession  that  their  first  bishop  had  one  of  the  Apostles 
or  of  the  apostolic  men  (who  persevered  with  the  Apos- 
tles) for  his  author  and  predecessor."  And  again : 
"  The  apostolical  churches  have  their  rolls ;  the  church 
of  Smyrna  has  Polycarp  constituted  there  by  John,  &c." 
"  And  the  other  churches  can  tell  who  were  appointed  as 
bishops  by  the  Apostles,  &c." 

Theprelatist  finds  in 'such  phraseology ,  demonstrative 
•proof  of  High  Church  Episcopacy !    "  It  seems  (to  him) 

*  These  are  painful  illustrations  how  readily  men  who  "  think 
themselves  wise,  become  fools."  See  tlie  abundant  proofs  in 
Bingham  (Orig.  Eccles.),  who  was  a  staunch  Prelatist.  Thes.3  are 
impressive  developments  of  Ihe  church  of  l/ie  fi)-sl  three  centuries," 
as  Dr.  Van  Deusen  has  it. 

t  Bingham,  vol.  4,  pp.  619,  &<:.,  &c. 


214  High  Church  EpLscoPAcy. 


needless  to  add  more!"*  But  he  entirely  forgets  that 
Presbyterians  acknowledge  a  succession  of  bishops  or 
pastors,  the  earliest  of  which  were  appointed  by  the 
Apostles.  Irenseus  who  suffered  martyrdom  about 
twenty  years  before  TertuUian's  death,  in  contending 
against  the  heretics,  us&s  similar  arguments  derived 
from  presbyterial  succession  :  "  We  challenge  them,"  he 
says,  '-to  that  apostolical  traditioa  which  is  preserved  in 
the  churches  through  the  succession  of  the  presbyters  " — 
"  we  cau  enumerate  those  who  were  constituted  bishops 
by  the  Apostles  " — "  obey  those  presbyters  in  the  church 
who  have  the  succession,  as  we  have  shown,  from  the 
Apostles,  who  with  the  succession  of  the  episcopate  (or 
bishop's  office)  received  the  gift  of  truth  " — "  adhere  to 
those  presbyters  " — "  who  with  the  presbyterial  succession 
do  show  forth  sound  speech."  Thus  these  two  fathers, 
who  were  for  a  time  contemporaries,  interpret  each  other. 
We  have  much  stronger  proof  of  presbyterial  succession 
than  of  prelatical  succession,  the  latter  being  a  mere  fig- 
ment of  High  Church.  Even  Bishop  Kaye  is  compelled 
to  acknowledge  that  "  the  writings  of  Tertullian  afford 
us  little  assistance  in  ascertaining  wherein  the  distinction 
of  orders  consisted."! 

Let  Tertullian  more  fully  explain  himself :  "  In  the 
church  are  used  exhortations,  chastisements,  and  divine 
censure."  "  The  presid-  nts  that  bear  rule  therein  are 
certain  approved  presbyters,  who  have  obtained  this 
honor  not  by  reward,  but  by  good  report."  These  pre- 
siding presbyters  are  doubtless  the  same  with  the  ~poe(T- 
Toze-  of  Justin  Martyr,  of  the  previous  century.  They 
were  the  pastoi-s  of  the  churches,  and  presided  over  all 
the  public  worship. 

But  the  prelatist  earnestly  contends  that  "  the  bishop's 
supreme  authority  "  J  is  clearly  asserted  in  the  follow- 
ing :  "  The  highest  priest,  who  is  the  bishop,  possesses 
the  right  of  giving  baptism — then  the  presbyter  and  the 
deacon  ;  yet  not  without  the  authority  of  the  bishop,  for 
the  honor  of  the  church — which  being  safe,  peace  is  also 

*  Notes  on  Episcopacv,  p.  148. 

t  Ecc.  Hist,  of  Second  and  Thud  Ctntury,  p.  234. 

X  Notes  on  Episcopacy,  p.  148. 


Jerome  on  "Ixstin^ctu  Diaboi^i."  215 


secured ;  otherwise  the  right  (i.  e.  of  baptism)  belongs 
even  to  laymen."  This  father  also  speaks  of  the  apos- 
tolical churches,  "  over  which  the  chairs  of  the  Apostles 
still  presided."  This  latter  passage  explains  the  former. 
"  The  highest  priest,"  or  president,  as  primus  j^resbijter,  or 
chief  presbyter,  presided  over  the  rest.  This  is  the  dic- 
tate of  order  and  common  sense,  in  all  deliberative  as- 
semblies. To  this  presbyterial  goveninicnt  Jerome,  of 
the  following  century,  alludes,  when  lie  says:  "Before 
there  were,  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  j)arties  in  re- 
ligion "— "  the  churches  were  governed  by  the  common 
council  of  the  presbyters" — -commuui  ])resbyterorum 
concilio,  ecclesite  gubernabantur. 

In  the  meetings  of  the  sanhedrim  in  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogues, there  was  "the  chief  ruler"  or  presidcut,  with  a 
bench  or  consistory  of  elders.  This  is  abundantly  famil- 
iar to  every  reader  of  the  New  Testament.  This,  says 
Mr.  Thorndike,  an  Episcopalian,  "was  the  form  wherein 
the  bishops  and  presbyters  used  to  sit  in  the  primitive 
church — the  presbyters  upon  a  bench  by  themselves,  with 
their  faces  towards  the  people,  and  in  a  semi-circle."* 
The  president  of  these  meetings  was  "  the  highest  priest," 
— the  chief  presbyter — but  his  elevation  to  the  chief  seat 
was  uo  mark  of  a  superior  order,  any  more  than  the  pre- 
sident or  moderator  of  one  of  our  presbyteries  or  synods 
is  necessarily  of  "a  higher  order."  To  this  custom 
Ignatius  of  the  first  century  appears  to  allude,  when  he 
speaks  of  "  your  bishop,  and  the  well-wrought  spiritual 
crown  of  your  presbytery."f  "  We  grant  them  bishops" 
(or  pastors),  says  Milton;  "we  grant  them  placed  in 
several  churches  by  the  Apostles  ;  we  grant  that  Ireureus 
and  Tertulliau  affirm  this.  But  that  they  were  placed 
in  a  superior  order  above  the  presbytery,  show  from  all 
these  words  why  we  should  grant" — "show  when  the 
Apostles  altered  their  own  decree  set  down  by  Paul,  and 
made  all  the  presbyters  nnderlings  to  one  bishop. "  f  It 
is  easy  to  prove  from  Tertulliau  the  existeuce  of  bish- 
ops, "successions  of  bishops" — "the  very  chairs  of  the 

*  Relig.  Assemb.,  chap.  o. 
fTo  the  Magnesians,  sec.  13. 
J  Prose  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  85. 


216 


High  Chuech  Episcopacy. 


Apostles,"  &c.  Such  editors  and  authors  as  Dr.  Wain- 
wright  are  exultant  at  such  overwhelming  proof!  But 
it  was  long  since  truly  remarked  by  a  distinguished 
Episcopalian,  afterwards  a  bishop,  "  that  nothing  has 
been  a  more  faithful  mother  of  mistakes  and  errors,  than 
the  looking  upon  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church 
through  the  glass  of  our  modern  customs — especially 
when  under  the  same  name  something  far  different  is  set 
forth  to  us."* 

But  if  TertuUian  was  a  High  Church  Episcopalian,  we 
will  discover  in  his  writings  that  bishops  were  by  divine 
right  a  svperior  order,  and  had  each  received  a  new  or- 
dination in  his  advancement  from  the  grade  of  presbyter 
— that  each  buhop  governed  a  number  of  churches  with 
their  pastors,  each  possessed  the  exclusive  right  of  or- 
daining  and  confirming,  &c.,  «fec.  Does  this  father  teach 
these  things  ? 

1.  He  tells  us  that  in  his  day,  presbyters  were  Uie pres- 
idents of  their  religious  assemblies :  "  certain  approved 
elders  (presbyters)  preside." 

2.  That  before  ''receiving  baptism,"  the  custom  was, 
"  under  the  hand  of  the  president,  to  renounce  the  devil" 
— •'  the  right  of  giving  this  ordinance,"  he  adds,  "  be- 
longs to  the  bishop,"  i.  e.,  the  bishop  ordinarily  j^reMded 
and  performed  baptism ;  in  other  words,  the  president 
(i.  e.,  presbyter,  as  before,)  and  bishop  were  the  same  per- 
son. 

3.  That  none  but  the  presiding  presbyter  (or  bish- 
op) administered  the  Eucharist  or  Lord's  supper.  "We 
receive  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,"  says  Ter- 
tuUian, "  from  NONE  but  the  presidents  of  our  assem- 
blies." Yet  in  chapter  3,  De  Corona,  he  says  that  the 
churches  of  his  district  were  in  the  habit  of  recei%'ing 
that  ordinance  three  times  each  week,  i.  e.,  on  Wednes- 
days, Fridays  and  Sundays.  But  surely  it  requires  no 
proof  that  the  person  who  ordinarily  did  all  the  baptiz- 
ing, and  always  administered  the  Lord's  supper  thrice 
each  week  to  all  the  church  members,  was  not  a  dioce- 
san, but  a  parochial  bishop,  or  pastor.    Besides,  on  the 

*  Stillingfleet's  Irenicum,  p.  261. 


Tertullian  on  a  Lay  Ministky.  217 


iheory  of  High  Cluirchraeo  th\9  presiding  bishop  perform- 
ed all  this  labor,  while  at  the  same  time  he  had  under  his 
control  several  presbi/ters  and  deacons  qualified  for  the 
same  work !  What  greater  absurdity  than  to  suppose 
our  three  bishops  to  perform  all  the  baptisms,  and  ad- 
minister the  Lord's  supper  three  times  a  week  to  all  the 
parishes  in  Pennsylvania ! 

That  Tertullian  would  be  a  very  unsafe  guide  in  mod- 
ern High  Church  matters,  is  ahundantly  evident.  Thus 
in  chapter  17  of  his  work  concerning  baptism,  he  says: 
"  Are  not  those  of  us  who  are  laics,  priests  ?  It  is  writ- 
ten, '  He  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God.' 
The  authority  of  the  church,"  he  adds,  "  has  appointed  the 
ditference  between  the  order  and  the  people,  and  the 
dignity  is  sacred  where  there  is  an  assembly  of  the  order. 
So  where  there  is  no  assembly  of  the  ecclesiastical  order, 
you  (the  laity)  both  offer  (t.  e.,  in  the  Lord's  supper,  )  and 
baptize,  and  you  are  alone  a  priest  to  yourself.  More- 
over, where  there  are  three,  there  is  a  church,  although 
THEY  BE  LAYMEN.  Therefore,  if  you  have  in  yourself 
the  rishts  of  a  priest,  where  necessity  requires  it,"  &c., 
&c.  We  should  like  to  see  some  of  our  very  high  Epis- 
copalians attempt  to  square  their  church  notions  by 
these  rules  of  Tertullian !  "  Divine  right  of  Prelacy  " — 
"  no  bishop,  no  church  " — and  several  other  similar  ex- 
travagancies show  rather  small  in  such  company  !  "One 
thing  is  clear,"  says  the  Episcopal  Mr.  Goode,  "that 
Tertullian  had  no  notion  tiiat  consecration  by  a  bishop 
or  presbyter  was  essential  to  the  participation  of  the  Eu- 
charist (or  Lord's  supper),  but  he  distinctly  held  that 
in  their  absence,  it  was  competent  to  a  layman  to  cel- 
ebrate it  merely  as  a  matter  of  ecclesiastical  order."* 
Mr.  Goode,  after  quoting  a  similar  sentiment  from  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  adds  :  "  As  regards  the  essentials,"  "  the 
office  of  the  bishop  or  presbi/ter  is  a  point  not  affecting  the 
reality  of  the  sacrament  (the  Lord's  supper),  but  one  of 
ecclesiastical  order."!  1^  I-^i'-  Van  Deusen,  in  his  next 
volume  of  sermons,  should  broach  such  doctrine  as  this 
of  Justin  and  Tertullian  "  of  the  first  three  centuries,"  we 
-  Kule  of  Faith,  vol.  2,  p.  40.       f  Ibid.,  vol.  2,  p.  42. 


218  High  Chubch  Episcopacy. 


opine  it  would  create  quite  a  seDsation  in  certain  high 
places  of  Pittsburgh  and  elsewhere !  His  fellow  presby- 
ter Goode,  quoting  Bingham,  thinks  it  necessaiy  to  add, 
by  way  of  caution,  that  Tertullian  and  Justin  do  "by  no 
means  cotifinmd  the  offices  of  clergy  and  laity  together, 
UNLESS  any  one  can  think  ordinary  and  extraordinary  all 
one."  And  this  is  all  that  even  Bingham,*  high  pre- 
latist  as  he  was,  has  to  say  in  extenuation  of  the 
stroug  anti-prel;\tical  doctrine  of  two  of  the  most  distin- 
guished of  the  fathers  of  "the  three  first  centuries!" 
Thfse  views,  however,  are  for  the  most  part  in  entire 
harmony  with  the  Presbyterian  theoiy,  viz.,  that  in  cir- 
cumstances of  providential  necessity,  as  for  example, 
where  a  few  people  are  so  situated  as  to  be  permanently 
excluded  from  regular  ministerial  service,  they  have  the 
right  to  associate  together  and  elect  one  of  their  number 
to  be  their  bishop  or  pastor,  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
&c.  "  For,"  as  says  Tertullian,  "  where  there  are  three, 
there  is  a  church  ;"t  and  this  is  defined  in  "the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer"  (Art.  XIX)  to  be  "a  congregation  of 
faithful  men  in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached 
and  the  sacraments  be  duly  ministered  according  to 
Christ's  ordinance."  But  this,  of  course,  requires  that 
some  person  should  perform  these  services,  and  in  cases 
of  necessity,  according  to  Tertullian  and  Justin  ISfartyr, 
one  of  "  the  three  laymen  "  can  lawfully  and  validly 
both  bajjtize  and  administer  the  Lord's  supper.  Or  as 
Archbi>li()p  Potter  interprets  Tertullian  :  "  When  three 
are  gatlieied  together,  they  make  a  church,  though  they 
be  all  laymen  ;  and  where  no  clergyman  is  present,  lay- 
men may  baptize  and  celebrate  the  Eucharist;  the  dis- 
tinction between  clergy  and  laity  being  only  of  the 
church's  app)ointmerd."X  Few  Presbyterians  would  be 
willing  to  adopt  so  radical  a  sentiment  as  this.  We  are 
far  from  teaching  that  the  authority  of  Presbyterian 
bishops  or  pastors  depends  simply  upon  "  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  church." 

*Origines  Ecclesiasticse,  Book  I,  chap.  5. 

t  For  a  very  s;illy  :ittt  in])t  to  cnst  ridicule  upon  th's  doctrine, 
as  in  tlie  la^r  di"'  a  (.'iniiaiiv  of  Chri.stians  cast  on  a  de.''ert 
island,"  SCO  Prcsl..  Uvra.  &c.,  pp.  357-360. 

tCh.  <;nvl  .rha,.,   1.  p.  1  ll  ^. 


CvpRiAN  ON  Early  Cohruptions.  219 


VII.  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  whose  conversion  took 
place  A.  D.  246,  and  whose  labors  and  writings  belong 
to  the  succeeding  thirteen  years,  comes  next  under  re- 
view. He  lived  in  troublous  times,  and  though  one  of 
the  wisest  and  best  of  the  early  fathers,  was  driven  from 
his  city  and  cluirch  for  a  season  by  a  cruel  and  bloody 
persecution.  It  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  nature  of 
the  bishop's  office  of  that  period,  to  copy  the  Episcopal 
Milner's  account  of  his  election  by  the  church  of  Car- 
thage: "  It  was  with  no  satisfaction  that  Cyprian  ob- 
served the  designs  of  the  people  to  choose  him  for  their 
bishop.  He  retired  to  avoid  solicitation  ;  his  house  was 
besieged ;  his  retreat  was  rendered  impossible.  He 
yielded  at  length."  *  The  part  taken  by  "  the  people  " 
iu  this  affair,  finds  little  to  correspond  in  "the  Episcopal 
Prayer  Book  "  of  modern  times. 

It  may  be  well  worth  while  to  look  for  a  moment  at 
"the  church  of  the  third  century,"  the  boasted  period  of 
purity  and  the  j^attern  to  modern  times  of  truth  and 
righteousness,  to  which  High  Churchmen  direct  atten- 
tion !  In  Cyprian's  treatise  "  concerning  the  lapsed,"  "  we 
have,"  says  Milner,  "an  affecting  account  of  the  declen- 
sion from  the  spirit  of  Christianity  which  had  taken  place 
before  his  conversion."  "Each,"  says  Cyprian,  "had 
been  bent  on  improving  his  patrimony."  "  The  pastors 
and  deacons  each  forgot  their  duty."  "  Works  of  mer- 
cy were  neglected  and  discipline  was  at  its  lowest  ebb. 
Luxury  and  effeminacy  prevailed.  Meretricious  arts  in 
dress  were  cultivated.  Fraud  and  deceit  were  practised 
among,  brethren.  Christians  *  *  *  could  swear  not 
only  without  reverence,  but  even  without  veracity.  *  * 
*  *  Even  many  bishops  who  ought  to  be  guides  and 
patterns  to  the  rest,  neglecting  the  peculiar  duties  of 
their  stations,  gave  themselves  up  to  secular  pursuits. 
They  deserted  their  places  of  residence  and  their  flocks. 
They  travelled  through  distant  provinces  in  quest  of 
pleasure  and  gain,  *  *  and  were  insatiable  in 
their  thirst  for  money.  They  possessed  estates  by  fraud  and 
multiplied  usury."    Such  is  Cyprian's  picture  of  the 

•'Clinich  History,  Cent.  II  I. 


220  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


state  of  religion  in  his  day.  "Avarice  had  taken  deep 
root  among  the  people,  and  when  a  persecution  arose, 
vast  numbers  lapsed  into  idolatry.  The  crowds  of 
apostates  were  very  great,"  Cyprian  tells  us,  and  they 
even  "  importuned  the  magistrates  immediately  to  he  al- 
lowed to  prove  themselves  heathen."*  This  is  not  a 
very  bright  portrait  of  "  the  three  unbroken  centuries  of 
piety,  miracle  and  martyrdom,  under  the  watch  and  rule 
of  Episcopacy  '."f 

Nor  was  this  all.  Even  so  early  as  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  Milner  affirms  that  "the  corruptions  of 
superstition  in  giving  immoderate  honor  to  saints  and 
martyrs  *  *  *  j^ad  already  contaminated  the  sim- 
plicity and  purity  of  Christian  faith  and  dependence." 
And  of  Cyprian  himself,  he  says :  "This letter  (Epistle 
20)  exhibits  true  grace  tarnished  with  pitiable  ignorance 
and  super stition."X  Yet,  in  answer  to  '' certain  presby- 
ters," who  had  written  to  inquire  his  judgment  on  some 
difficult  point,  he  says:  "I  determined  to  du  nothing 
without  your  consent  and  the  consent  of  the  people.  *  * 
*  *  When  I  shall  have  returned  (from  banishment) 
we  will  treat  in  common  of  all  these  things."§  This  is 
the  style  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  as  recorded  Acts 
15  :  22,  23.  "  It  pleased  the  Apostles  and  elders,  with 
the  xvhole  church,  to  send  chosen  men."  "The  Apostl&s, 
and  elders  and  hreihren,  send  greeting,  &c."  Cyprian 
was  obviously  not  a  bishop  after  the  type  of  the  modern 
(so  called)  "  successors  of  the  AjDostles."  So  also  in  his 
Epistles  he  refers  to  the  schism  of  Felicissimus  and  to 
the  case  of  several  others,  which  on  his  return  to  Car- 
thage, he  promises  to  have  settled,  not  only  in  the'pres- 
ence  of  his  colleagues,  but  before  the  whole  people — pre- 
sentibus  et  judicantibus  vobis — secundum  arbitrium  quo- 
que  vestrum  et  omnium  nostrum  commune  consilium. 

*  Milner,  vol.  I,  pp.  165,  166. 

t  Clergyman  Looking  for  the  Cliurch,  p.  34?. 

X  Ch.  Hist.,  vol.  I,  pp.  173,  174. 

I  Ibid,  p.  169.  In  his  33d  Epistle  to  his  flock,  Cyprian  apolo- 
gizes for  appointing  Auretius  to  the  oflSce  of  reader,  from  the 
nece.ssity  of  tlie  case,  and  the  impossibility  of  consulting  his 
s,'fratri>  carri^siini,"  as  he  was  accustomed  to  do,  "solemiis  vos 
ante  coiiMilfrt." 


Bishops  alone  Baptize.  221 


It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Cyprian  viewed  his  own 
office  of  bishop  as  belonging  to  a  distinct  order  of  clergy 
from  that  of  the  preaching  presbyters,  and  by  divine 
right  superior  to  them ;  or  that  this  superiority  of  order 
was  preceded  and  created  by  a  new  and  distinct  ordina- 
tion, or  that  he  had  under  him  a  number  of  congrega- 
tions with  their  pastors,  whom  he  governed.  "It  is 
lawful,"  he  says  (Epistle  73),  "  for  none  but  presidents 
(i.  e.  Episcopaily  interpreted,  bishops)  of  the  church  to 


diocese  could  our  High  Church  bishops  perform  all 
these  labors  in  addition  to  their  other  duties  ? 

Again  :  In  speaking  of  ordination  and  its  right  per- 
formance, he  says :  "  The  neig'nboring  bishops  of  the 
same  province  meet  with  that  flock  to  which  the  bishop  is 
to  be  ordained,  and  the  bishop  is  chosen  in  presence  of 
the  people.  *  *  *  This  was  done  by  you  in  the  or- 
dination of  Sabinus,  our  colleague;  the  episcopacy  was 
conferred  on  him  by  the  suffrage  of  the  whole  brother-hood 
and  of  the  bishops  who  were  met  there."  This  corres- 
ponds very  well  with  the  supposition  that  Cyprian's 
bishop  was  the  pastor  of  "  one  flock,"  by  whom  he  was 
chosen — for  he  adds,  "  the  flock  or  people  has  the  chief 
power  of  choosing  worthy  priests  and  refusing  unworthy 
ones,"  "  wherefore  a  flock  that  is  obedient  to  God's  com- 
mands ought  to  separate  from  a  wicked  bishop,  and  not  to 
join  in  the  sacrifices  of  a  sacrilegious  priest." 

Again  :  Cyprian  says  "  a  church  consists  of  a  bishop, 
clergy,  and  all  that  stand  fast  in  the  faith."  He  repre- 
sents his  own  church  as  having  a  council  of  elders  or 
presbyters,  with  whom  as  his  "  colleagues,"  he  was  ac- 
customed to  consult ;  and  with  whom  and  the  flock  he 
ordinarily  united  in  the  Lord's  supper.*  In  the  same 
church  there  were  deacons,  subdeacons,  readers  and 
acolyths,  all  of  wliich  were  formally  ordained!  And 
it  is  remarkable  that  in  writing  to  the  presbyters  of 
the  church  of  Carthago,  during  his  banishment,  he  en- 
joins upon  them  to  perform  the  duties  which  he  was  ac- 

*  Sacramenti  veritatem  omni  fraternitate  praisente,  celebrare. 
Ep.  63.  So  also  in  Epist.  13,  he  speaks  of  himself  as  "  pastor  of 
the  clmrcli." 


remission  of  sins."    In  how  large  a 


20 


222 


JIiGii  Cnui.cn  HIpi.scoi'acv 


customed  to  discharge.  So  that  it  appears  evideut  that 
at  least  some  of  those  eldei-s  were  authorized  to  preach, 
as  well  as  administer  the  sacraments.  That  all  of  them 
were  so  qualified,  there  is  no  evidence. 

Such  then  was  "the  bishop  of  Carthage;"  such  his 
idea  of  the  true  bishop.  He  claims  for  him  indeed  a 
primacy  of  office  as  president,  but  not  of  order.  He 
nowhere  recognizes  tbe  existence  of  such  an  order  as  that 
of  bishops  having  the  sole  power  of  ordination,  govern- 
ment and  discipline,  as  by  divine  right  essentially  dis- 
tinct from  and  superior  to  presbji-ers.  He  divides 
church  officers  into  two  classes,  bishops  and  presbyters 
constituting  one  class,  and  deacons  the  other.  He  lays 
no  claims  to  exclusive  jwwer.  He  exercises  no  authori- 
ty over  many  congregations  and  pastors.  He  governs 
in  common  council  with  the  presbyters,  though  as  j/resi- 
dent  and  pastor  he  is  called  bishop  or  overseer.  He  is 
chosen  by  the  people  of  his  charge  ;  and  plainly  attri- 
butes to  the  bishop  no  greater  pre-eminence  than  Peter 
held  over  the  other  Apostles.* 

It  is  not  denied  that  at  the  period  when  Cyprian  flour- 
ished, there  had  been  a  perceptible  increase  of  the  power 
and  assumptions  of  the  bishops,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
system  was  verging  more  and  more  towards  Popery. 
It  had  bec&me  somewhat  common  to  regard  the  Jewish 
hierarchy  as  the  model  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and 
very  extravagant  notions  were  coming  in  vogue  in  re- 
gard to  the  principle  of  unity  as  centreiug  in  the  bishops. 
Even  Milner,  a  devout  admirer  of  Cyprian,  admits  "that 
there  are  expressions  in  his  writings  savoring  of  haughti- 
ness ;  and  that  the  episcopal  authority,  through  the  grad- 
ual groiuth  of  superstition,  was  naturally  advancing  to  an 
excess  of  dignity."  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  to  tind 
this  father  arrogating  for  the  bishop's  office  pre-eminence 
even  higher  than  the  Scriptures  give  to  the  apostleship, 
viz.,  as  "the  sublime  summit  of  the  priesthood  " — "the 
divine  power  of  governing  the  church  " — "  the  honor  of 
the  bishop  and  the  honor  of  his  priesthood  and  chair!" 

*  See  Cvprian  de  Unitate  Eccles.  for  proofs  of  these  points,  and 
in  Epistles  13,  3, 4,  72,  67,  38,  63.  The  English  reader  may  con- 
sult Smyth  on  Prelacy,  p.  382. 


Gradual  Ai'pkoaches  to  Popery.  22'6 


So  also  he  orders  a  deacon  who  had  giveu  offence  to  a 
bishop,  "  with  full  humility  or  prostration  to  make  sat- 
isfaction to  him  !"  He  says  that  "  the  bishop  is  in  the 
church  and  the  church  is  in  the  bishop  ;  and  that  if  any 
is  not  in  the  bishop,  he  is  not  in  the  church  " — that  "  the 
church  is  constituted  upon  the  bishops  " — and  again, 
"  that  she  is  founded  on  Peter  by  Christ,  the  origin  and 
principle  of  unity  " — "  founded  upon  one  who  also  re- 
ceived its  keys."*  Nor  is  it  surprising  to  find  him 
teaching  that  "  the  baptism  of  infants  is  essential  to  their 
salvation" — "  that  almsgiving  frees  from  death  " — that 
it  is  necessary  that  he  who  is  baptized  should  be  an- 
ointed," "  in  order  to  become  the  anointed  of  God,  and 
have  the  grace  of  Christ  in  himself"  Thus,  too,  accord- 
ing to  Cyprian,  "  the  cup  of  the  Lord  consists  not  of 
water  only,  or  of  wine  only,  but  both  must  be  mixed  " — 
and  this  mixture,  he  says,  is  as  indispensable  as  "  the 
mingling  of  water  with  flour  to  make  the  bread  which 
he  calls  'the  body  of  the  Lord.'"  And  worst  of  all, 
in  one  passage  (Epist.  66)  he  talks  of  "  praying  for  the 
dead  " — "  sacrificium  pro  dormitione  ejus  " — a  sacrifice 
for  his  repose — as  though  it  were  already  a  not  uncom- 
mon practice!  It  is  an  instructive  lesson  to  observe 
how  stealthily  some  of  the  worst  errors  and  vices  of  the 
dark  ages  were  growing  into  vigor  side  by  side  with  the 
arrogant  claims  of  the  hierarchy. 

That  this  is  only  a  fair  view  of  the  state  of  the  church 
in  Cyprian's  day,  we  have  the  most  iucontestible  evi- 
dence. Of  the  "  third  century,"  Mosheim,  the  learned 
Lutlierau  historian,  says:  "The  fsice  of  things  began 
now  to  change.  The  ancient  method  of  ecclesiastical 
government  *  *  by  imperceptible  steps  varied  from  the 
primitive  rule  and  degenerated  towards  the  form  of  a 
religious  monnrchy,  i.  e.  Popery.  The  bishops  aspired 
to  higher  degrees  of  power  and  authority — violated  the 
rights  of  the  people — made  gradual  encroachments  upon 
the  privileges  of  the  presbyters.  *  *  They  published 
new  doctrines  concerning  the  nature  of  the  church  and 
of  episcopal  dignity.    One  of  the  principal  authors  of 


*Ei)islle  69. 


224  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


these  changes  was  Cypbian.  Many  of  the  clergy  were 
sunk  in  luxury  and  voluptuousness,  puffed  up  with  van- 
ity, arrogance  and  ambition,  *  *  addicted  to  many 
other  vices.  *  *  The  bishops  assumed  in  many  places 
a  princely  authority — the  splendid  ensigns  of  temporal 
majesty.    A  throne  surrounded  with  ministers,  exalted 


sus,  and  sumptuous  garments  dazzled  the  eyes,"*  &c.  &c. 
Amid  this  vast  array  of  corruption  and  superstition,  the 
only  wonder  is  that  the  writings  of  Cyprian  still  retain 
so  many  clear  indications  of  primitive  simplicity  and 
purity.  The  testimony  of  Mosheim  and  Milner  is  abun- 
dantly confirmed  by  other  impartial  historians.  This  is 
the  style  in  which,  a.s  we  are  told,  "  the  church  rejjosed 
for  three  centuries  under  the  Episcopacy !"  If  this  is 
the  truth,  it  is  certainly  not  greatly  to  the  credit  of  the 
High  Church  system.  The  established  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  in  a  similar  state  at  the  period  of  the  Wesleyau 
advent. 

VIII.  A  few  authorities  of  the  third  century  remain  to 
be  noticed.  Origen,  a  little  earlier  than  Cj'prian,  sheds 
small  additional  light  on  the  subject.  Though  only  a 
presbyter,  as  all  admit,  he  says  in  Horn.  7 :  "  We  of  the 
elerkal  order,  who  preside  over  you,"  &c.  And  of  cer- 
tain unworthy  deacons,  he  say  :  "  They  go  about  to  seize 
the  high  chairs— jrmnas  cathedras—u{  presbyters.  Some 
also  attempt  more,  in  order  that  they  may  be  called 
bkhops  " — and  then  i-eferring  to  Paul'.s  description  of  a 
bishoj)  (Tit.  1  :  6,  &c.),  lie  adds,  "though  men  should 
not  give  such  n  one  <&>i  Paul  describes)  the  name  of  bish- 
op, yet  he  will  be  a  bishop  before  GoD."t 

And  of  "  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches,"  he  says : 
"  Certain  ruling  presbyters  {-posarwze:)  were  called  an- 
gels by  John  in  the  Apocalypse."^ 

Firmilian,  bishop  of  Cesarsea,  and  the  friend  of  Origen 

*Cent.  Ill,  chaj).  2,  see.  3,  4. 
t  In  Matt.  23 

t  De  Orator.,  sec.  34.  Origen  here  uses  the  very  same  Greek 
lerm  employeil  by  Justin  Martyr,  TtpoeffToj^.  This  is  the 
term  used  by  Paul  to  qualify  presbyters  or  elders,  1  Tiuj.  5 :  17— 
"The  ciders  tli;it  lule  Kell,"' &e. 


servant  of  the  meek  and  lowly  Je- 


Testimonv  nF  FiRMiiJA.N  AXi)  Geegort.  225 


and  Cyprian,  in  writing  t»  the  latter,  lias  this  remarka- 
ble testimony:  "If  they  (heretics)  separate  from  the 
elnirch,  they  eau  have  no  power  ol'  grace ;  since  all 
power  and  grace  are  placed  in  the  church  where  pres- 
byters PRESIDE,  in  whom  is  veded  the  power  of  baptizing 
and  imposition  of  hands,  and  ordination  " — ubi  prcesi- 
dent  major es  naiu,  qui  et  baptisandi,  et  manum  imponendi 
et  ordinandi,  possident  potestatem.  This  was  the  language 
of  one  bishop  to  another,  both  greatly  distinguished  in 
the  church.  Yet  the  plenitude  of  modern  Episcopal 
prerogative  is  here  vested  in  the  presbyters  !  There 
was  still  some  virtue  reniaiuiug  in  the  church.  Howev- 
er corrupt,  proud  and  aspiring  the  bishops  had  become, 
yet  when  they  were  brought  into  conflict  with  ^'  here- 
tic-i,  they  were  constrained  to  revert  to  the  simplicity  of 
primitive  truth  and  order.  If  any  should  doubt  wheth- 
er by  the  phrase  "  majores-natu  "  Firmilian  meant  p-es- 
byters.  Bishop  Jewel  shall  answer — "  Presbyter  is  ex- 
pounded in  Latin  by  majoren-natu."  Reeves,  also,  in  his 
translation  of  the  works  of  Justin  Martyr,  admits  that 
majores-natu,  as  employed  by  Tertullian,  is  the  same  with 
■"  the  presbyters  that  rule  well,"  of  Paul,  in  Tim.  5  ;  17. 
This  is  the  admission  of  a  zealous  prelatist. 

Gregory  Thawnatvrgus,  the  wonder  worker,  a  pupil 
©f  Origeu,  and  whose  life  was  written  by  Gregory, 
Bishop  of  Nyssa,  is  our  next  witness.  Fi'ora  his  life 
Bishop  Burnet  translates  the  following :  "  Being  afraid 
to  engage  iu  the  pastoral  charge,  ho  avoided  all  occa- 
sions of  being  laid  hold  of  and  ordained.  This  being 
observed  by  Phedimus,  a  neighboring  bishop, — though 
Gregory  was  three  days  journey  distant  from  him, — he 
(Phedimus)  did  by  prayer  dedicate  him  to  the  service  of 
God  at  Neocesarea  where  there  were  then  but  seventeen 
Christians."  This  last  fact  was  distinctly  stated  by 
Gregory  himself  This  was  the  extent  of  his  diocese. 
As  to  presbyters,  he  had  none  to  govern,  and  but  a  soli- 
tary deacon  ?  Whether  there  may  be  "  a  church  without 
a  bishop  "  has  been  questioned,  but  here  was  pretty  near- 
ly "  a  bishop  without  a  church." 

The  case  of  Novatus,  a  presbyter  of  Carthage,  ccm- 
firms  all  that  has  been  said.    Novatus  in  the  absence  of 


226 


Hl(il£  ChUHCH  P]piSCOPACY. 


Bishop  Cyprian,  had  ordained  Felicissimus  to  the  office 
of  deacon.  According  to  modern  High  Church  notions, 
this  was  a  profane  usurpation  of  the  bishop's  preroga- 
tive. Did  Cyprian  so  view  it?  Far  from  it.  He 
blames  Novatus  for  not  consulting  him  ;  yet  he  did  not 
depose  either  him  or  Felicissimus  ;  but  in  the  following 
year  speaks  favorably  and  kindly  of  Novatus.  And 
from  the  Epistles  of  Cyprian  it  is  further  manifest  that 
even  at  this  period  the  presbyters  in  common  council 
continued  to  govern  at  Rome  during  any  temporary 
vacancy  of  the  bishop's  office  which  might  occur. 

Such,  then,  is  the  testimony  of  the  iliird  century. 
Making  all  due  allowance  for  the  acknowledged  depar- 
tures from  primitive  simplicity  and  order,  no  candid 
mind  can  discover  the  divine  right  of  prelacy  in  the 
statements  of  these  early  writers.  We  have  thus  reach- 
ed the  limits  of  the  model  church  of  "  the  first  three 
centuries,"  as  held  up  to  our  admiration  by  Dr.  Van  D. 
and  other  High  Churchmen. 

If  it  were  desirable  to  extend  the  inquiry,  many  facts 
might  be  adduced  even  from  the  history  of  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries,  to  confirm  the  foregoing  argument. 
For  example,  "  Fussala,  a  military  station,  had  its  bish- 
op, though  only  a  castle."  "  In  Augustine's  time,  there 
were  four  bishops  of  one  party  in  one  place,  for  one  of 
the  other,"  referring  to  the  division  of  Catholics  and 
Donatists.  Augustine,  speaking  of  the  third  century, 
tells  of  "  nuiny  thousand  bishops  then  in  the  world  ;"  and 
at  the  Conference  of  Carthage,  "  he  gives  an  account  of 
near  five  hundred  orthodox  bishops  and  four  hundred 
of  the  Donatist  party,"  these  all  in  a  single  province  of 
Africa.  "  Theodoret  also  tells  us  of  Paul,  Bishop  of 
Neocesarea,  a  castle  or  fort  near  the  Euphrates."  These 
were  not  bishops  of  the  modern  sort. 


DorriiiNE  OF  Ai'O.stotjcai.  Succkssion. 


'^27 


CHAPTER  XV. 

DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE    DOCTRINE  OF  APOSTOLICAL 
SUCCESSION. 

The  High  Church  doctrine  of  "  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion "  is  so  important  a  feature  of  the  Episcopal  scheme, 
that  it  demands  special  consideration.  And,  perhaps,  in 
no  other  respect  is  that  system  more  vulnerable,  or  com- 
passed with  such  insuperable  embarrassments. 

It  is  proper  to  state  at  the  outset  the  precise  views  of 
High  Church  on  this  topic,  thus:  "The  prelates,"  says 
Dr.  Hook,  Vicar  of  Leeds,  "  who  at  the  present  time 
rule  the  churches  of  these  realms,  were  validly  ordained 
by  others,  who  by  means  of  an  unhrokeyi  spiritual  descent 
of  ordination,  derived  their  mission  from  the  Apostles. 
*  *  M  *  Q^J.  ordinations  descend  in  a  direct  unbro- 
ken line  from  Peter  and  Paul."  "  When  a  minister  of 
the  highest  grade  (a  bishop)  ordains,"  says  Dr.  How,  of 
New  York,  "Christ  ordains!  When  a  minister  of  the 
second  grade  ordains,  it  is  not  Christ  that  ordains  but  man." 
In  the  latter  case,  he  adds,  "  the  sacerdotal  ofBce  must 
cease  to  exist,  and  as  there  can  be  no  church  toithout  a 
ministry,  the  church  must  cease  to  exist  also." 
"Wilful  opposition  to  Episcopacy  *  *  *  must  ex- 
clude from  God's  presence." 

We  give  these  merely  as  specimen  illustrations  of  this 
feature  of  High  Church  polity.  A  more  logical  exhibit 
is  the  following  from  an  Episcopal  source : 

1.  That  the  consecration  of  bishops  by  bishops  is 
essential  by  divine  authority,  to  render  them  capable  of 
performing  the  duties  of  ordination  and  church  govern- 
ment, and  that  whenever  this  chain  of  successional  Epis- 
copal consecration  is  lost,  there  are  none  duly  qualified 


228 


Hkjii  Church  P>iscoi>Acy. 


to  preach  the  gospel,  or  administer  the  sacraments,  aud 
that  those  who  are  not  in  Cdiuinuuion  with  this  validly 
consecrated  ministry  form  no  jjarl  of  tlie  church. 

2.  That  the  grace  which  Christ  has  appointed  to  be 
imparted  through  the  sacraments,  flows  only  through 
such  Episcopally  ordained  ministers,  and  of  course 
separate  from  them  there  is  no  communion  with  Christ, 
and  only  "  mock  sacraments." 

3.  That  by  such  Episcopal  ordination  is  conferred  in 
all  cases,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  abide  in  the  per- 
son ordained,  and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  or 
Episcopal  grace,  derived  bv  succession  from  the  Apos- 
tles.* 

Adopting  these  principles,  the  High  Church  are  quite 
consistent  in  denouncing  all  other  Protestant  denomina- 
tions as  "apostate  sects,"  as  "having  no  baptism,"  but 
mere  "Jewish  washings;"  and  even  the  Low  Church 
Episcopalians  are  charged  by  these  High  Churchmen 
with  combining  with  "  the  dissenter,  the  lawless  and  the 
infidel,"  "joining  hands  with  parties  just  hanging  over 
the  precipice;"  with  aiming  "to  league  with  the  sects, 
and  losing  the  link  with  antiquity,"  and  thus  directing 
"millions  iu  dismay  to  Roinel"!  Principles  in  them- 
selves so  extraordinary  and  leading  to  such  results, 
should  be  supported  by  conclusive  logic.  Let  us  inquire 
how  this  matter  stands. 

I.  If  only  prelatical  bishop;  have  power  from  God  to 
ordain  other  bishops  and  presbyters,  so  as  to  have  a 
true  and  not  a  mock  ministry,  the  question  arises,  "Who 
ordained  the  first  bishops?  The  High  Churchman 
readily  answers,  "  the  Apostles."  Here,  then,  the  ques- 
tion at  once  starts  up,  "  Did  the  Apostles  design  by 
ordination  to  constitute  an  order  of  prelatical  bishops? 
Did  they  mean  these  bishops  to  be  so  wholly  and  essen- 
tially diflferent  from  and  superior  to  '  the  order  of  pres- 
byters,' that  without  ordination  by  the  hands  of  a 
bishop,  no  one  is  authorized  or  duly  qualified  to  preach 
the  word  and  administer  the  sacraments  ?"  In  the  fore- 
going discussion,  we  have  shown  that  this  is  by  no 

*  Abridged  from  Goode's  Rule  of  Faitli,  vol.  2,  p.  56. 
t  Clergyman  Looking  for  the  Church,  pp.  514,  51G. 


Bishops  by  Force  of  Custom.  229 


means  clearly  demonstrated  from  the  Scriptures,  the  in- 
spired records  of  the  Apostles.  Many  of  the  wisest  and 
most  learned  men  that  ever  lived  have  strenuously  de- 
nied that  the  Sacred  Records  teach  any  such  distinction 
of  order.  All  parties  admit  that  the  Scripture  titles, 
bishop  and  presbyter,  give  no  shadow  of  support  to  such 
a  difference,  and  even  Bishop  Hooker,  a  prince  among 
prelatists,  concedes  that  "  there  may  be  sometimes  very 
JUST  AND  SUFFICIENT  REASON  to  allow  ordinatiou  made 
without  a  bishop."  "Where  the  church,"  he  says, 
"must  needs  have  some  ordained,  and  neither  hath  nor 
can  have  possibly  a  bishop  to  ordain,  in  case  of  such 
necessity  the  ordinary  institution  of  God  hath  given 
oftentimes,  and  may  give  place."  "  And,  therefore,"  he 
continues,  "  we  are  not  simply  withoiit  exception  to 
urge  a  lineal  descent  of  power  from  the  Apostles  by  con- 
tinued succession  of  bishops  in  every  effectual  ordina- 
tion."* Again,  says  the  same  "judicious"  bishop: 
"Let  them  (t.  e.  bishops)  continually  be:'.r  in  mind  that 
it  is  rather  the  force  of  custom  whereby  the  church 
having  so  long  found  it  good  to  continue  under  the  regi- 
ment of  her  virtuous  bishops,  doth  still  uphold,  main- 
tain and  honor  them  in  that  respect,  than  that  any  such 
true  and  heavenly  law  can  be  showed  by  the  evidence 
whereof  it  may  of  a  truth  appear  that  the  Lord  himself 
hath  appointed  presbyters  for  ever  to  be  under  the  regi- 
ment of  bishops."  "Their  (bishops)  authority  is  a 
sword  which  the  church  hath  power  to  take  from  them ."f 
The  doctrine,  therefore,  which  requires  us  to  believe 
that  the  professed  minister  who  has  not  been  ordained 
by  a  bishop  is  nought  but  "  a  thief  and  a  robber,  who  has 
climbed  up  some  other  than  the  right  way,"  and  that, 
too,  notwithstanding  he  has  maintained  a  most  holy 
and  upright  life  and  conversation  and  been  eminently 
useful  in  the  pastorate ;  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  all 
ministers  who  have  had  the  impress  of  Episcopal  ordi- 
nation, no  matter  how  objectionable  on  the  score  of 
morals  and  personal  and  official  worth,  are  true  minis- 
ters ;  in  a  word  that  such  men  as  Doddridge,  Robert 

*  Quoted  by  Macaulay,  Kev.  of  Gladstone,  Misc.,  |>.  394. 

f  Ecc.  Polity,  (inotedby  (ioode  ;  Rule  of  Faith,  vol.  2,  p.  71. 


230  High  Church  Episcopacy 


Hall  and  Archibald  Alexander  were  no  true  Christian 
ministers,  but  that  Jon.  Swift  and  Laurence  Sterne  were 
true  ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  the  two  Onderdonks 
were  genuine  successors  of  the  Apostles — this  doctrine 
is  obviously  very  hard  to  believe!  ■  The  very  basis  on 
which  it  rests,  the  claim  of  prelacy  to  have  undoubted 
apoetolical  origin  and  authority,  has  been  earnestly  dis- 
puted by  men  of  the  largest  erudition  and  acuteness ; 
and  by  many  of  equal  integrity  and  piety,  both  in  and 
out  of  the  Episcopal  denomination. 

n.  This  doctrine  is  simply  the  old  Romish  principle 
engrafted  upon  an  English  stock.  It  is  curious  to  note 
the  similarity  of  phraseology  with  which  the  papist  de- 
nounces the  advocates  of  the  High  Church  system. 
Romish  bishops  and  priests  are  "the  true  apostleship," 
"  have  tlie  true  commission  of  the  ministry,"  "regularly 
commissioned  and  perpetuated,"  "  none  other  can  reason- 
ably arrogate  to  itself  the  power  of  performing  the 
functions  of  that  commissioned  tribunal,"  "  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  pontiffs  and  prelates,"  "their  holy 
orders  in  a  right  line  from  the  Apostles,  &c.,&c."*  But 
of  this  same  apostate  church,  we  are  told,  "her  worship 
has  become  a  gaudy  display  of  heathenish  idolatry  !"t 
Yet  it  was  through  this  filthy  channel  that  for  ages  the 
modern  "  apostolical  succession "  descended !  The 
bishops  of  this  country,  we  are  informed,  "  derived  their 
Episcopal  character  from  the  Church  of  England.^ 
And  where  did  the  Church  of  England  derive  her  suc- 
cession? As  to  the  merits  of  the  Reformation  from 
Popery  in  that  country,  "  at  the  time  when  the  tempest 
which  Luther  had  awakened  in  other  lands  was  purify- 
ing the  long  stagnant  waters,  England  long  remained 
the  Dead  Sea,  the  sea  of  Sodom."  "  Here  were  the 
most  avaricious  extortions  from  the  laity,  the  widest 
stretch  of  priestly  insolence,  the  most  shameless  expo- 
sure of  clerical  profligacy.  The  blood-thirstj'  Wolsey 
was  the  incarnation  of  her  piety  and  a  royal  monster 

*  "The  End  of  Controversy,"  by  Mihier,  the  papist, 
t  Church  Review,  quoted  by  Dr.  Van  Deusen. 
X  Jubilee  Sermon,  by  Bishop  of  Tennessee. 


"The  Derision  of  the  World."  231 

became  '  the  defender  of  her  faith.'  "*  Of  the  same 
meek  character  was  the  so-called  "  martyr,"  Archbish(jp 
Laud,  whose  distinction  it  was  (among  many  other  vir- 
tues) to  have  the  pious  Leighton  condemned  "to  pay  a 
fine  of  £10,000,  lose  both  his  ears,  have  his  nose  slit  and 
his  forehead  bi'anded  with  the  initial  letters  of  the  words 
seditious  slanderer."  We  concede  that  wiser  and  better 
men  at  other  times  took  part  in  the  English  Reforma- 
tion, but  the  continent  Henry,  the  devout  Elizabeth  and 
the  martyr  Laud  were  fair  representatives  of  the  thor- 
oughness of  that  reform.  We  want  no  such  succession. 
Whether  Rome  is  more  correct  in  unchurching  Episco- 
pacy, than  Episcopacy  in  unchurching  others,  are  ques- 
tions of  small  importance  to  us.  Let  them  settle  it 
among  themselves.  We  direct  attention  to  the  state- 
ment of  Pearson,  Dean  of  Salisbury,  "  that  the  asser- 
tion of  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  apostolic  succes- 
sion of  Episcopacy,  though  consistent  with  the  system 
of  Romanism,  has  never  been  assumed  by  the  Church  of 
England. "t  "  To  spread  abroad  this  notion  "  ("  the 
necessity  of  apostolical  succession  in  bishops  and  pres- 
byters") "as  the  only  security  for  the  efficacy  of  the 
sacraments,  would  be  arrogantly  to  set  up  a  claim 
which  neither  Scripture,  7ior  the  formularies  and  various 
offices  of  the  church,  nor  the  writings  of  her  best 
divines,  nor  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  will  allow. 
To  spread  abroad  this  notion  would  be  to  make  ourselves 
the  derision  of  the  world."X  Accordingly,  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  of  which  Cranmer  was  the  chief  au- 
thor, we  find  neither  the  name  nor  the  thing  which  is 
thus  scouted  by  a  distinguished  j)relate  of  the  English 
EstablLshment.  The  very  standards  of  the  High  Church 
system  are  silent  as  to  this  "  notion." 

III.  The  rightful  parentage  of  this  doctrine  belongs 
to  Archbishop  Laud.  About  the  close  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  (which  occurred  in  1603),  "  Laud  and  his  party," 
says  the  historian  Hallara,  "  began  to  preach  the  divine 
right  or  absolute  indispensability  of  Episcopacy ;  a  doc- 
trine of  which  the  fi^'st  traces  (in  the  English  Church), 

*  Edinburgh  Review,  Oct.  1836,  to  p.  231. 

t  Bricknell's  Judgment,  &c.,  p.  330. 

i  Miisgrave,  Bishop  of  Hereford,  1842,  Bricknell,  p.  320. 


232  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


as  I  apprehend,  are  found  about  this  period.*  They 
insisted  on  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  (i.  e.  prelatical) 
succession  regularly  derived  from  the  Apostles,  and  as 
an  inference,  that  ordinations  by  presbyters  were  in  all 
cases  null."t  Of  the  numerous  innovations  introduced 
by  Laud  and  his  creatures,  "all,"  adds  Hallam,  "were 
80  many  approaches  to  the  Roman  model;"  among 
which  he  enumerates  the  following:  "The  communion 
table  took  the  name  of  an  altar  and  the  crucifix  was 
sometimes  placed  upon  it,"  "  the  doctrine  of  a  real 
(bodily)  presence  (in  the  Lord's  supper)  was  generally 
held."  Also,  "invocation  of  saints,"  "prayers  for  the 
dead,"  "  purgatory,"  "  auricular  confession ;"  and  he 
made  public  declaration,  "  that  in  the  disposal  of  benefices 
he  should,  in  equal  degrees  of  merit,  prefer  single  before 
man-ied  priests."  "Episcopal  government,"  said  the 
party,  "  is  indispensably  requisite  to  a  Qiristian  church. 
Hence  they  treated  the  Presbyterians  with  insolence 
abroad  and  severity  at  home."  No  wonder  the  papists 
"began  to  anticipate  the  most  favorable  consequences 
from  this  turn  in  the  church,"  "  sanguine  and  not  un- 
reasonable hopes  !"J  Under  such  auspices,  it  was  natural 
that  the  government,  through  the  dictation  of  Laud, 
should  "  harrass  the  Dutch  and  Walloon  churches  in 
England,"  and  disclaim  all  fraternity"  Avith  the  un- 
episcopal  churches  of  the  continent.  It  had  not  been 
so  before  this  period  of  Romanizing  tendencies — for 
Elizabeth  herself  had  corresponded  with  the  Protestants 
of  the  continent,  styling  them  "  dear  brethren,  &c." 
There  was  evidently  a  great  change,  though  Macaulay 
afiirms  that  "  for  150  years  after  Henry  VIII  chose  to 
become  his  own  pope,"  "  the  Church  of  England  con- 

*  That  the  earliest  founders  of  the  Chiirch  of  England  did  not 
teach  apostolical  succession  Ls  evident.  "  They  retained  Epis- 
copacy," says  Macaulay,  "  but  not  as  essential  to  the  welfare  of 
a  Christian  society  or  to  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments.  Cran- 
mer,  indeed,  on  one  occasion,  avoweS  that  there  was  no  distinc- 
tion between  tishops  and  priests,  and  that  the  laying  on  of  hands 
was  altogether  superfluous."  Hist.  Eng.,  vol.  I,  p.  39. 

t  See  Hal  lam's  Constitutional  History  of  England,  of  which 
Macaiilay  says,  "  it  is  the  most  impartial  book  he  ever  read." 

I  Hallam. 


The  Blessed  Martyr,  Laud.  233 


tinued  to  be  the  servile  handmaid  of  monarchy,  the 
steady  enemy  of  public  liberty."  A.s  to  the  so-called 
"  two  blessed  martyrs  "  of  that  church,  the  same  elo- 
quent historian  and  essayist  has  proved,  that  "  to  repre- 
sent Charles  I  (who  lost  his  head  for  tyranny  and  its 
associated  crimes)  as  a  martyr  in  the  cause  of  Episcopa- 
cy, is  absurd."  He  is  of  opinion  that  "  the  royal  blood 
which  still  cries  to  heaven  every  30th  of  January  for 
judgments  only  to  be  averted  by  salt  fish  and  egg-sauce, 
would  never  have  been  shed  in  such  a  cause,"  if  it  had 
not  been,  in  Charles'  opinion,  indissolubly  bound  up 
with  the  royal  prerogative,  "  the  church  the  great  bul- 
wark of  monarchical  power."  And,  among  other  proo's, 
he  adduces'the  act  of  Charles  in  1641 :  "  He  deliberate- 
ly confirmed  the  Scotch  declaration,  viz.,  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  by  archbishops  and  bishops  was 
contrary  to  the  word  oj  God."*  Yet  High  Church  "  has 
converted  this  worst  of  kings  into  a  "  blessed  martyr." 

As  to  the  other  "  blessed  martyr,"  Laud,  Macaulay 
says :  "  We  entertain  a  more  unmitigated  contempt  for 
him  than  for  any  other  character  in  our  history.  The 
fondness,  indeed,  with  which  a  portion  of  the  (English) 
church  regards  his  memory,  can  be  compared  only  to 
that  perversity  of  affection  which  sometimes  leads  a 
mother  to  select  the  momter  or  the  idiot  of  the  family  as 
the  object  of  her  especial  favor."  Instead  of  putting 
this  idiot  to  death,  "  the  severest  punishment,"  he  adds, 
'  which  the  Parliament  could  have  inflicted  on  him 
would  have  been  to  set  him  at  liberty  and  send  him  to 
Oxford,"  "  there  to  minute  down  his  dreams,  counting 
the  drops  of  blood  which  fell  from  his  nose,  watching 
the  direction  of  the  salt,  and  listening  for  the  note  of  the 
screech-owl,"  &c.,  all  which  and  many  other  equally 
edifying  records  he  has  left  to  posterity  in  his  diary ! 
"  Contemptuous  mercy  was  the  only  vengeance  which  it 
became  the  Parliament  to  take  on  such  a  ridiculous  old 
bigot."  It  was  under  the  viild  government  of  these 
"blessed  martyrs,"  he  tells  us,  "  the  Puritans  were  per- 
secuted with  a  cruelty  worthy  of  the  Holy  Office,  many 

*Rev.  of  Hallara,  p.  85,  86. 
21 


234 


High  Church  Episcoi'acy. 


forced  to  fly  from  the  country,  others  imprisoned, 
whipped,  their  ears  cut  oflT,  their  noses  slit,  their  cheeks 
branded  with  red  hot  iron."  "  Guided  chiefly  by  the 
violent  spirit  of  the  primate  (Laud),  the  government  dis- 
played a  rapacity,  a  malignant  energy  unknown  to  any 
former  age." 

IV.  Such  was  the  suspicious  ancestry  in  the  English 
Episcopal  Establishment,  of  the  doctrine  of  apostolical 
succession.  We  proceed  to  look  the  thing  directly  in 
the  face,  and  will  have  little  difficulty  in  discovering  a 
strong  famil}'  resemblance  in  the  modern  scheme. 

Are  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  Christian  religion  re- 
stricted, except  in  the  case  of  involuntary,  unavoidable 
ignorance,  to  the  ministrations  of  men  who  have  been 
ordained  by  a  prelatical  bishop — since  they  alone  are  to 
be  viewed  as  true  ministers  and  all  others  as  mere  pre- 
tenders— these  latter  having  no  right  from  Christ  to 
preach  the  gospel  or  administer  the  sacraments?  "  The 
theory  is,  that  each  bishop,  from  the  apostolic  times,  has 
received  in  his  consecration  a  mysterious  gift,  and  which 
he  alone  can  transmit  to  a  presbyter  or  other  bishops : 
that  this  gift  is  indicated  in  the  offices  of  ordination  by 
the  words  of  the  Prayer  Book — '  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost.' "  "  Thus  the  bishops  become  a  sort  of  Leyden  jar 
of  spiritual  electricity,  transmitting  this  divine  influence 
(by  actual  succession)  through  the  persons  of  impure, 
profligate,  heretical  ecclesiastics,  as  ignorant  and  flagi- 
tious as  any  layman,  and  perfectly  irrespective  of  their 
moral  qualifications"* — "the  Holy  Ghost"  making  no 
distinction  between  a  Borgia  or  a  Hildebrand  and  a 
Cranmer,  between  a  Laud  and  a  Ridley !  The  better 
sort  of  the  "  fathers,"  indeed,  often  insist  ujiou  purity  of 
life  and  soundness  of  doctrine  as  necessary  to  a  true 
minister  of  Christ ;  but  no  one  at  all  familiar  with  the 
ecclesiastical  history  of  the  middle  or  dark  ages,  can  feel 
the  least  hesitation  in  admitting  that  simony,  heresy, 
profligacy,  &c.,  were  no  uncommon  features  of  the 
clergy,  not  excepting  the  prelates  and  the  bishops.  And 
then,  as  to  the  teaching  of  our  blessed  Lord  and  his 


*  Edinburgh  Review,  July,  1813. 


Leyden  Jar  of  Spiritual  Electeicity.  235 


Apostles,  this  mysterious  doctrine  staggers  our  faith  ex- 
ceedingly— for  we  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  Judas 
Iscariot  was  a  true  apostle,  in  the  same  sense  and  as 
really  as  Peter  and  Paul  !*  Can  a  man  who  is  no  Chris- 
tian, but  an  infidel  or  atheist,  be  a  true  minister  of 
Christ,  a  main  pillar  of  the  church,  a  genuine  successor 
of  the  Apostles  ?  Is  it  not  impious  to  make  any  such  as- 
sertion, involving  the  idea  that  the  God  of  truth  and 
holiness  has  pledged  himself  to  impart  the  gift  of  "  the 
Holy  Ghost "  to  a  heretic  or  vile  profligate !  Yet  from 
the  eiglith  century  to  the  fifteenth,  not  less  than  eight 
of  the  Archbisops  of  Canterbury  were  consecrated  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  certain  Popes,  among 
whom  we  find  the  murderer  of  the  Albigenses,  Innocent 
III,  and  other  notorious  instruments  of  "  the  man  of  sin," 
the  Romish  apostasy !  And  as  many  more  were  conse- 
crated by  the  Pope's  legates,  or  other  authoritative 
agents  of  the  Papacy !  The  same  is  true  to  a  considera- 
ble extent  of  the  Archbishops  of  York,  Bishops  of  Dur- 
ham, and  Bishops  of  Winchester. 

V.  The  difficulties  of  this  doctrine  multiply  as  we  ad- 
vance. Among  the  long  lists  of  simoniacal,  atheistical 
and  profligate  prelates,  especially  during  the  dark  ages, 
what  bishop  or  presbyter  can  have  any  cei-tainty  that  he 
and  his  predecessors  in  the  same  line  have  been  duly 
consecrated?  Well  might  Chillingworth  say,  that  "of 
a  hundred  seeming  priests  (or  presbyters),  it  was  doubt- 
ful whether  there  was  one  true  one,"  on  prelatical  prin- 
ciples. Omitting  for  the  present  all  the  disorders  of  the 
English  Establishment  after  Henry  VIII  made  himself 
Pope.t  what  evidence  have  we  for  the  fifteen  or  sixteen 
centuries  previously,  that  the  strictest  I'egularity  was 

*It  is  true  that  the  whole  twelve  are  called  "Apostles"  (Luke 
6:  13),  but  so  Christ  promised  twelve  thrones  to  the  disciples,  in- 
cluding Judas.  So  Jerusalem  is  called  the  "  Holy  City,"  though 
the  prophets  h  id  denounced  it  as  "  Sodom  and  Gomorrah." 

fSays  Macaulay,  "The  king  was  to  be  the  Pope,  the  vicar  of 
God,"  &c.  "  He  proclaimed  that  it  was  in  his  power  to  confer 
episcopal  authority  and  to  take  it  away."  "  There  was  no  neces- 
sity, in  the  oijinion  of  Cranmer,  for  the  imposition  of  hands.  The 
king  iniiiht,  in  virlne  of  aulhoritv  from  God,  make  a  priest."— 
Hist.  of  Knghuul,  vol.  1,  p.  41. 


236  High  Church  EnscoPACY. 


observed,  so  that  episcopal  functions  were  exercised  ex- 
clusively by  those  who  were  prelatical  bishops  by  apos- 
tolical succession?  "In  the  first  place,"  as  the  great 
essayist  and  historian,  Macaulay,  has  said,  "we  have  not 
full  and  accurate  information  of  the  polity  of  the  church 
during  the  century  that  followed  the  persecution  by 
Nero.  That  during  this  period  the  overseers  of  all  the 
little  Christian  societies  scattei'ed  through  the  Roman 
empire,  held  their  spiritual  authority  under  '  holy  or- 
ders '  derived  from  the  Apostles,  can  be  proved  by  no 
contemporary  evidence  nor  by  any  testimony  which  can 
be  i"egarded  as  decisive."  "  The  question  whether  the 
primitive  constitution  of  the  church  more  resembled  the 
Anglican  or  Presbyterian  model,"  is  one  on  which  "  a 
full  half  of  the  ability  and  erudition  of  Europe  has,  ever 
since  the  Reformation,  been  opposed  to  the  High  Church 
pretensions."  As  to  the  New  Testament — in  order  to 
accommodate  its  teachings  to  that  system,  we  have  al- 
ready sliown  that  it  must  be  in  large  part  re-written. 

Nothing  is  clearer,  from  all  the  facts  of  history,  than 
that  the  Romish  Church  was  subject  to  innumerable  dis- 
orders during  tlie  long  night  of  the  middle  ages.  "  We 
read,"  says  the  historian  ]Macaulay,  "  of  episcopal  sees 
of  the  highest  dignity  opeuly  sold — transformed  back- 
wards and  forwards  by  popular  tumult — bestowed  some- 
times by  a  profligate  woman  on  her  paramour — some- 
times by  a  warlike  barou  on  a  kinsman  still  a  stripling 
—  of  bisliops  icii,  or  even/i'c  years  old — of  many  Popes 
who  Wi  re  mvw  boys,  and  who  rivalled  the  frantic  disso- 
luteness in  morals  of  the  monster  Caligula."  Roscoesays 
that  Leo  X,  of  the  times  of  Luther,  was  ordained^at  the 
age  of  seven,  made  an  abbot  at  eight,  and  a  cardinal  at 
the  age  of  thirteen ! 

Nor  was  the  case  at  all  better  in  England,  iu  regard 
to  the  literary  qualifications  and  "  aptness  to  teach  "  of 
these  "  successors  of  the  Apostles."  It  was  the  com- 
plaint of  King  Alfred,  "  that  not  a  single  pried  south  of 
the  Thames,  and  very  few  north,  could  read  either  Latin 
or  English" — and  these  ignorant  barbarians  were  "to 
instruct  in  tlic  true  religion  "a  rude  and  half  heathen 


Broken  Links  in  the  Chain.  237 


population!  "*  And  as  to  Ireland,  St.  Bernard,  one  of 
the  true  Catholic  saints,  affirms  "  that  througli  the  whole 
iskmd  there  was  a  total  dissolution  of  ecclesiastical  dis- 
cipline, and  that  instead  of  Christian  liabits  and  customs, 
a  cruel  savageism  was  everywhere  substituted " — pro 
consuetudiue  Christiana  sreva  sub  introducta  l)arbarie3. 

Agaiu,  the  question  whether  "  holy  ordei's "  have 
come  down  regularhj  in  the  apostolic  line,  and  with  no 
broken  link  in  the  chain,  depends  ujion  a  large  number 
of  such  puzzling  problems  as  the  following:  "  Whether, 
under  King  Etlielwolf,  a  stupid  priest  might  not,  while 
baptizing  several  scores  of  Danish  prisoners,  who  had 
just  made  their  decision  in  favor  of  the  baptismal  font 
rather  than  the  alternative,  the  gallows,  inadvertently 
have  omitted  to  perform  the  rite  on  one  of  these  pi-ose- 
lytes — whether,  in  the  seventh  century,  an  impostor, 
without  consecration,  might  not  have  passed  himself  as 
a  bishop  on  a  rude  tribe  of  Scots — whether  a  lad  of 
twelve  did  really  (and  apostolically)  by  a  ceremony 
huddled  over  when  he  was  too  drunk  to  know  what  he 
was  about,  convey  the  episcopal  character  ("  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost)  to  a  lad  of  ten !"  Among  the  tens  of 
thousands  who  iiave,  since  the  first  century,  acted  as 
bishops,  one  would  suppose  that  such  facts  as  these 
might  reasonably  cast  a  shade  of  doubt  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  transmission  of  "  orders  "  to  a  bishop  or  presbyter 
of  tlic  present  day  directly  from  the  Apostles! 

And  what  shall  we  say  of  tlie  frequent  impositions 
which,  Judas-like,  unprincipled  men  have  practised 
upon  liberal  and  simple-hearted  Christians,  as  seems  to 
have  been  the  case  of  Peregrinus,  in  the  third  century. 
At  Marseilles,  says  Macaulay,  "  he  pretended  to  be  a 
Christian,  and  was  raised  to  the  episcopal  dignity, 
though  never  even  baptized  !"  "  Do  we  know  enough," 
he  adds,  "  of  the  state  of  the  world  and  of  tlie  cliurch  at 
that  period,  to  be  able  to  say  that  there  were  not  twenty 
(or  fifty)  such  pretended  bishops,"  "  successors  of  the 
Apostles !"    Every  such  case  snaps  asunder  many  links 

*Iii  Europe,  Macaulay  says,  "not one  man  in  five  hundred 
could  s|)ell  his  way  through  a  psalm.''  This  was  from  the  end 
of  the  eleventh  to  the  fourteeth  century.    Plist.  Eng.,  vol.  1,  p.  32. 


238  High  Church  Episcwacv. 


of  the  boasted  succession.  The  strength  of  any  chain 
is  only  as  the  strength  of  its  weakest  link.  Of  course 
if  any  such  break  as  Hooker  admits  to  have  been  fre- 
quent, and  very  supposable  from  motives  of  cupidity, 
lust  of  applause,  &c.,  took  place — "  if  St.  Patrick  (if 
there  ever  was  such  a  man),  or  Theodore  of  Tarsus,  who 
is  said  to  have  consecrated,  in  the  seventh  century,  the 
first  bishops  of  England  " — if  any  of  the  missionaries 
who  first  converted  the  wild  inhabitants  to  Popery,  had, 
by  any  such  break  in  the  chain,  been  either  an  unbap- 
tized  hypocrite  as  some  were,  or  without  other  ordination 
than  that  by  presbyters — what,  in  such  a  casualty,  must 
become  of  the  certainty  of  "  the  apostolic  orders "  of 
modem  clergymen,  both  in  England  and  America? 

The  obvious  conclusion  from  such  historical  deduc- 
tions, is  this  :  If  it  were  proved,  as  it  never  can  be,  that 
the  church  had  High  Church  orders  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, it  would  l)e  impossible  to  prove  that  those  "orders" 
were  not  so  far  lost  in  the  long,  dark  night  of  Popery, 
that  no  ecclesiastic  could  be  certain  of  the  legitimate 
descent  of  his  "  spiritual  office."  Because,  in  the  words 
of  Chillingworth,  "  it  is  extremely  improbable,  and  even 
closely  allied  to  the  impossible,  that  of  ten  thousand  re- 
quisites, not  one  should  fail."  Such  is  the  boasted  unbro- 
ken series  of  High  Church  succession  !  What  prelatical 
bishop  can  have  any  certainty,  under  such  circumstances, 
that  his  predecessors  have  always  been  duly  ordained — 
what  presbyter,  that  his  bishop  was  not,  in  the  long  line 
of  corruption  aud  disorder,  the  victim  of  some  sad  mis 
chance,  such  as  we  have  seen  so  often  occur?  Who  of 
modern  prelatists  will  undertake  to  trace  up  his  spirit- 
ual pedigree  unbroken  to  the  age  of  the  Apostles? 
About  as  rationally  set  a  corps  of  engineers  to  mark 
out  with  chain  and  compass  the  precise  track  of  the 
Jewish  tabernacle  in  its  long  journey  through  the  wil- 
derness. Even  the  Episcopal  Mr.  Goode  admits  that 
"  episcopal  consecration  "  (i.  c.  by  the  hands  of  a  bish- 
op), "as  the  seal  of  episcopal  appointment,"  "  was  not 
universally  practised  in  the  primitive  church;"  and 
for  proof  he  refers  to  "the  records."  He  cites  such  au- 
thorities as  Eutychius,  Jerome  and  Augustine,  aud 


No  Prelvtioal  Successiox. 


239 


others,  showing  "  that  appoiutmeut  by  the  presbyters  of 
a  church  is  sufficient,  so  far  as  essentials  are  concerned, 
to  entitle  a  presbyter  to  perform  the  duties  of  the  episco- 
pal function.  This  was  practised  at  Alexandria  and 
other  points  as  entirely  regular. 

VI.  Enough  has  uow  been  said  to  prove  that  of  all 
uncertain  things,  "  apostolical  succession,"  in  the  prelat- 
ical  sense,  is  one  of  the  most  dubious.  It  may,  however, 
be  proper  to  adduce  some  Episcopal  authorities,  to  con- 
firm the  points  now  stated. 

1.  In  regard  to  the  Romish  origin  of  the  English  pre- 
latical  succession.  Dr.  Hook,  Vicar  of  Leeds,  says: 
"  Ours  is  the  old  Church  of  England  ;"  "  the  church  re- 
mained the  same  after  it  was  reformed  as  before,  just  as 
a  man  remains  the  same  after  he  has  washed  his  face," 
&c.  He  also  speaks  of  "  an  uninterrupted  series  of 
valid*  ordinations,"  which,  along  with  "her  peculiar 
doctrines  and  discipline,  has  always  marked  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  church  of  Christ  under  the  superintend- 
ence of  bishops  who  regularly  succeeded  the  Apostles." 
Thus,  he  adds,  "  the  Church  of  England  is  distinguished 
from  those  sects  of  Christianity  under  self-appointed  teach- 
ers." Yet  the  thirty-first  of  the  thirty-nine  Articles  pro- 
nounces the  doctrines  of  transubstantiation  and  the  mass 
to  be  "  blasphemous  fables  and  dangerous  deceits ;"  and 
the  Church  Review,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Van  Deusen,  says 
"the  Romish  worship  has  become  a  gaudy  display  of  hea- 
thenish idolatry !"  Certainly  it  is  no  worse  now  than  it 
used  to  be  in  England.  See  also  Articles  22  and  11, 
which  denounce  the  worship  of  images  as  "  repugnant 
to  the  word  of  God,"  and  the  Romish  heresy  that  "jus- 
tification is  not  by  faith  only,"  but  by  the  merits  of 
works  along  with  faith.  It  is  certain,  from  abundant 
records,  that  no  other  country  in  the  world  had  been 
more  devoted  to  all  the  worst  errors  and  degrading  su- 
perstitions of  popery  than  England.  And  it  is  true 
that  when  Henry  VIII  became  Pope,  he  designed  his 
church,  says  Maeaulay,  "to  differ  from  the  Roman 
Catholic  on  the  point  of  supremacy,  and  on  that  point 
alone."  Accordingly  he  proceeded  "  to  burn  as  heretics 
those  who  avowed  the  tenets  of  the  Reformers,  and  to 


240  High  Church  Eplscopacy. 


hang  as  traitors  those  who  owned  tlie  authority  of  the 
Pope  of  Rome."  But  the  real  "  founders  of  the  Angli- 
can Church,"  adds  the  same  distinguished  historian, 
"  had  not  declared  Episcopacy  to  he  of  divine  institu- 
tion." "  In  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  Bishops  Jewel, 
Cooper,  Whitgift  and  other  eminent  doctors  *  *  never 
denied  that  a  Christian  community  without  a  (prelatical) 
bishop  might  be  a  pure  church."  Li  proof  he  cites, 
among  others,  such  a  notorious  historical  fact  as  this, 
"  that  in  1603  the  Convocation  of  the  province  of  Can- 
terbury solemnly  recognized  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in 
which  episcopal  control  and  episcopal  ordination  were 
then  unknown,  as  a  branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
of  Christ."  Verily,  the  old  Romish  "  harlot "  required 
something  more  than  to  have  "  her  face  washed,"  before 
she  attained  to  this  character  of  a  virtuous  mother. 
Under  such  eminent  men  as  Cranmer  and  others,  the 
Church  of  England  "regarded  the  non-episcopal  churches 
of  the  continent  as  of  the  same  household  of  faith  as 
themselves."  This  is  so  patent  to  every  reader  of  his- 
tory, that  the  great  labor  of  the  Puseyites  and  other 
High  Churchmen  is  to  apologize  for  the  deplorable  fact. 
But  to  invent  any  plausil)Ie  reason  for  it,  is,  on  their 
principles,  simply  impossible.  "  Many  of  the  English 
benefices,"  Macaulay  says,  "  were  at  that  period  held  by 
divines  who  had  been  admitted  to  the  ministry  in  the 
Calvinistic  (or  Presbyterian)  form  on  the  continent ;  nor 
was  re-ordination  thought  necessary,  or  even  lauftd!"* 
Such  godly  reformers  as  Jewel  and  his  compeers  held 
the  view  afterwards  adopted  by  Bishop  Stillingfleet : 
"  The  succession  of  Rome  is  muddy  as  the  Tiber  itself." 
"  The  succession  so  much  pleaded  for  by  the  writers  of 
the  primitive  chuach,  was  not  a  succession  of  persons  in 
apostolical  power,  but  a  succession  in  apostolical  doc- 
trine."! 

2.  Next,  as  to  the  "  blessed  martyr"  Laud,  and  the 
fact  that  he  was  the  father  among  English  ecclesiastics, 
of  High  Church  pretensions.  He  was  plainly  a  papist  at 
heart.    Even  Bishop  Short  admits  that  "  he  probably 


*  Hist  Eng.,  vol.  1,  p.  57.         t  Irenicum,  p.  297,  &c. 


Muddy  as  the  Tiber  itself.  2^l 


wished  to  effect  some  sort  of  compromise  with  that  (tlie 
Koioish)  churcli."  '  lie  was  twice  offered  a  cardi- 
ual's  hat  "  — proviiij;-  that  at  Rome  iiis  services  were 
duly  appreciated!  Yet  of  this  creatine,  Froude — not 
the  historian,  but  the  Oxford  tractariau  —  says:  "I 
adore  King  Charles  and  Bishop  Laud !"  But  J;his 
martyr-saint,  in  his  letters  to  Sti-afford,  profanes  his 
Maker's  name  in  a  most  shocking  manner.  Yet  the 
British  critic  boasts  of  this  man  as  originating  "a  neiv 
development  of  the  church."  Of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
for  which  this  saint  felt  so  loving  a  regard,  Bishop 
Horsely  says :  "  She  is  corrupted  with  idolatry  very 
much  the  same  in  kind  and  degree  with  the  worst  that 
ever  prevailed  among  the  Egyptians  or  the  Canaanites." 
The  Bishop  of  Llandaff  says  :  "  She  has  converted  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel  into  a  religion  much  more  re- 
sembling the  heathen  mythology  than  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity."  "  Her  frauds,  impieties  and  superstitions 
far  outnumber  the  pure  ordinances  and  doctrines  of  the 
primitive  church,"  &c.  Even  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  de- 
nounces her  as  retaining  "ao  almost  incalculable 
amount  of  error  and  superstition  " — "still  as  subtle,  as 
dangerous  aud  as  false  as  she  has  ever  been,  as  shame- 
less a  perverter  of  the  truth  and  as  cruel  a  perscutor," 
&c.,  &c.  And  Bloomfield,  Bishop  of  Loudon,  charges 
"  that  she  is  in  a  state  of  schism,  if  not  of  apostasy, 
having  forsaken  the  true  faith  and  defiled  herself  with 
supei-stitiou  and  idolatry."!  Yet  for  the  sake  of  making 
out  some  show  of  argument  in  favor  of  their  succej- 
sional  figments,  High  Churchmen  are  willing  to  trace 
their  "  apostolical  ordei-s  "  through  this  filthy  channel 
as  it  existed  in  its  Knglish  and  most  corrupt  forms. 
And  we  are  told,  the  Church  of  England  only  "  washed 
her  face  "  when  she  became  reformed ! 

3.  Equally  explicit  are  many  of  the  wisest  and  best 
of  the  British  prelates  on  the  question  of  the  necessity 
of  "  apostolical  succession  "  to  the  validity  of  the  min- 
istry and  the  eflicacj'  of  the  sacraments.    "  We  could 

*Short  vvk-v-^  lo  Ilovlin's  Life  of  L:iud,  in  proof. 
iFor  tlics,.  j(i.|oi,„.|ii,  (,f  iIk-  iiirnleni  English  bishoiw,  see 
Brielcm-U's  work,  a  r,.l|.iuli..u  ..f  lli,'  cli;ir-«^  of  lii  )si;  prolatcs. 


242  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


not,"  says  Sumner,  Bishop  of  Chester,  "  in  this  land  of 
light,  maintain  the  fatal  claims  which  the  Koman 
priests  assume,  and  which  nothing  but  the  darkness  in 
which  they  shroud  their  people  could  enable  them  to 
preserve.  We  pity  them,  whether  deceivers  or  deceived." 

There  are  other  congregations  of  Christians  (besides 
the  Church  of  England,)  which  profess  the  same  truths; 
we  honor  them  also  with  brotherly  feelings ;  and  gladly 
say,  '  Grace  be  with  all  them  that  love  the  l^rd  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity.'  "  And  to  his  clergy  he  says  :  "To 
preach  the  word,  to  be  instant  in  season  and  out  of  sea- 
son, to  testify  both  publicly  and  from  house  to  house  re- 
pentance toward  God,  &c.,  this  is  to  be  the  successors  of 
the  Apostles." 

Archbishop  Whately  is  our  next  witness.  "  Our  re- 
formers rest  the  claims  of  ministers,  not  on  some  sup- 
posed sacramental  virtue  transmitted  from  hand  to  hand 
in  unbroken  succession,  in  a  chain  of  which  if  one  link 
be  even  doubtful,  a  distressing  uncertainty  is  thrown 
over  all  Christian  ordinances,  sacraments  and  church 
privileges  for  ever ;  but  on  the  fact  of  those  ministers 
being  tlie  regularly  appointed  officers  of  a  regular  Chris- 
tian community."  The  opposite  doctrine  which  High 
Churchmen  "substitute,"  he  pronounces  "not  only  ob- 
scure, disputable,  and  out  of  the  reach  of  the  mass  of 
mankind,  but  even  self-contradictory,  subversive  of  our 
own  and  every  church's  claims,  and  leading  to  the  evils 
of  doubt  and  schismatical  division." 

Hear  next  Pearson,  Dean  of  Salisbury,  who  denies 
that  High  Church  "  succession  "  has  ever  been  the  doc- 
trine of  the  English  Church.  "  The  absolute  necessity  of 
the  apostolic  succession  of  Episcopacy  to  the  existence 
of  a  Christian  church  and  the  validity  of  the  sacra- 
ments, I  venture  to  affirm,  without  fear  of  successful 
contradiction,  has  never  been  assumed  by  the  Church  of 
England !"  On  the  contrary  he  adds,  "while  lamenting 
as  an  imperfection  and  defect  the  want  of  the  Episcopal 
order  in  some  of  the  Reformed  churches  of  the  conti- 
nent, she  does  not  excommunicate,  nor  on  that  account 
refuse  to  acknowledge  them,  while  adhering  to  the  or- 
thodox fiiith  as  all  that  is  essential  as  true  and  liviuL' 
branrlirs  of  ChristV  uuivorsnl  church." 


High  ChxiRch  not  Gkeat  Divines.  243 


Thirlwall,  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  speaks  of  "apostoli- 
cal succession "  as  "a  weaj^ou  which  (in  controversy 
with  those  who  are  hostile  to  the  church)  would  seem 
to  be  best  kept  in  its  sheath,"  "  because  it  may  tend  to 
irritate  an  adversary,  but  not  weaken  him !"  And  as 
"to  those  who  are  already  hostile  to  the  church,  they 
would  only  deem  it  an  extravagant  pretension,"  and 
"  those  who  are  indifferent  to  her  more  evident  advan- 
tages, will  hardly  be  attracted  by  one  so  questionable,  and 
so  remote  from  common  apprehension  that  the  belief  in 
it  is  entertained  with  reluctance  by  many  who  admit  it !" 

With  still  greater  emphasis,  the  Bishop  of  Ossory, 
Ferns  and  Leighton,  declares:  "All  our  great  divines 
*  *  *  not  only  do  not  maintain  that  this  ("succes- 
sion of  episcopally  ordained  bishops  from  the  Apostles' 
time")  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  being  of  the  church, 
but  are  at  pains  to  make  it  clear  that  they  do  not  hold 
that  it  is."*  It  would  be  curious  if  not  edifying,  to 
contrast  these  official  announcements  from  distinguished 
English  dignitaries,  the  very  sentiments  of  "  all  their 
GREAT  DIVINES,"  with  thosc  SO  resolutely  put  forth  by 
the  small  divines  of  the  prelatical  sort  on  this  side  the 
Atlantic.  From  Bishop  Hobart  and  Dr.  Wainwright, 
down  to  Flavel  S.  Mines  and  others,  the  talk  is  :  "How 
gain  the  divine  reconciliation,  triumph  in  death  and 
bliss  in  eternity,  if  we  refuse  to  enter  the  communion 
and  fellowship  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,"  i.  e.  "  the 
bosom  of  the  church,"  "of  which  we  are  a  link  in  a  chain 
of  generations,"  &c.  "  No  bishop,  no  church,"  but 
"  apostate  sects,"  "  mock  sacraments  and  self  appointed 
teachers  of  religion."  Presbyterians  "have  no  bap- 
tism," "a  dead  sprinkling,"  "Jewish  washings,"  "no 
sacrifice  but  bread  and  wine,"  "they  have  lost  the  Eu- 
charist." "  The  three  orders  of  the  sacred  ministry  " 
(prelacy)  are  "  a  very  type  and  present  figure  of  the 
most  Holy  Trinity,"  cfecf 

*BrickneH,  "Judgment  of  the  Bishops,"  published  at  Ox- 
ford, England.    The  author  is  an  Episcopalian. 

fThis  last  item  is  from  ''Notes  on  Episcopacy,"  p. 357,  edited 
by  Dr.  Wainwright,  of  New  York.  This  is  prelacy  run  mad. 
Well  might  the  Bishop  of  Hereford  say  of  such  men,  "(hey 
make  themselves  the  derision  of  the  world." 


244  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


What,  then,  is  the  rational  and  scriptural  doctrine  of 
ministerial  succession  ?  In  nearly  the  language  of  the 
Episcopal  Mr.  Goode,  "We  contend  for  the  apostolical 
succession  of  the  ministry,  but  think  that  it  is  sufficient- 
ly maintained  by  confining  the  right  of  ordination  to 
presbyters;"  "that  our  Lord  intended  there  should  be  a 
succession  of  pastors  and  teachers  in  his  church  to  the 
end  of  time  (Eph.  4:  10,  11,  &c.);  that  he  and  his 
Apostles  appointed  the  first,  and  intended  that  under  all 
ordinaiy  circumstances,  all  who  followed  them  should 
receive  their  commission  from  them  or  their  successors."* 
"  Is  it  not  evident,"  inquires  a  writer  in  the  Episcopal 
Recorder  for  Jlarch,  1^63,  "  that  Cranmer,  Ridley  and 
other  coadjutors,  if  they  believed  in  any  doctrine  of 
ministerial  succession,  regarded  it  as  belonging  to  the 
order  of  presbyters  by  divine  appointment?"  And  in 
proof  he  cites  the  notorious  fact  "  that  members  of  the 
order  of  presbyters  held  livings  by  law  in  the  Church 
of  England,  who  were  ordained  by  presbyters  alone, 
preaching  and  administering  the  sacraments  to  the 
members  of  that  church  for  more  than  a  century."  In 
further  proof  he  cites  the  fact  that  in  the  forms  for  or- 
daining, which  were  arranged  by  Cranmer  and  his  friends, 
there  is  no  difference  in  the  words  of  ordination  to  dis- 
tinguish the  office  oj  bishop  from  that  of  presbyter.  "  This 
distinction,"  he  adds,  '•  was  not  made  till  one  hundred 
years  later,  by  the  bishops  under  Charles  II.  Nor  is 
there  any  evidence  that  the  English  reformers  regarded 
the  office  of  bishop  as  a  distinct  order  derived  from 
Scripture." 

It  was  certaiidy  highly  appropriate  that  "  a  distinc- 
tion of  order,"  which  uncliurches  the  great  body  of 
Protestant  Christians  throughout  the  world,  should 
originate  under  such  a  saiyit  as  the  profligate  Charles  II. 

*  Kule  of  Faitli,  vol.  2,  pp.  54-57.  . 


liioB  AND  Progress  of  Tractarianism.  21 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

HISTORY  OF  THE    RISE   OF   OXFORD  TRACTARIANISM — 
POPISH  TENDENCIES  OP  "THE  LITURGY." 

That  the  XXXIX  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land are  intensely  Protestant  wherever  they  touch  the 
topic  of  Romanism,  is  as  plain  as  language  can  make  it. 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  the  author  of  the  Aiticles,  as 
well  as  Ridley  and  other  noble  martyrs  for  conscience 
sake,  were  burned  at  the  stake  in  defence  of  the  pi'inci- 
ples  of  the  Reformation,  under  the  reign  of  "  bloody 
Mary ;"  and  it  was  not,  as  we  have  seen,  until  the  cruel 
bigot  Laud  became  the  chief  minister  of  the  crowu, 
that  the  strongest  tendencies  to  High  Churchism  and 
Popery  under  a  Protestant  ruler  were  developed.  For 
this  and  other  crimes.  Laud,  like  his  master  Charl?s 
I,  lost  his  head,  and  their  scheme  of  apostasy  to  Rome 
was  nipped  in  the  bud. 

It  is  one  of  the  strange  phenomena  of  our  fallen  na- 
ture, that  in  the  bosom  of  such  a  Christian  institution 
there  should  have  sprung  up  the  system  of  the  Oxford 
Tractariaus,  whose  avowed  aim  is,  in  the  language  of 
the  Bishop  of  Ossory,  "  to  unproteslantize  the  national 
church,"  or,  as  expressed  by  Bishop  Wilson,  "  to  under- 
mine the  whole  fabric  of  the  Reformation,  or  rather  of  the 
glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed  God,  which  that  Reforma- 
tion had  affirmed,"  thus  in  the  words  of  other  English 
prelates,  "  threatening  the  revival  of  the  worst  evils  of 
Romish  superstition,"  of  "  by-gone  follies,"  "  mediseval 
corruptions,"  "  mischievous  fopperies,"  &c.,  &c.  Hence 
while  the  Tractarians,  to  use  their  own  language,  ac- 
knowledge "Calvin  and  his  school  to  have  been  the 
master  spirits  of  the  Reformation,"  they  affirm  that 
"  the  full  development  of  Calvinism  waa  stopped,  only 
because  the  Reformation  was  stopped,  and  its  peculiar 
doctrines  remained  the  theology  of  their  church  till 


246  High  Chuech  Episcopacv. 


Laud  iipset  them."  So  Rome  is  declared  "  to  have  im- 
perishable claims  upon  our  gratitude,"  "is  our  elder 
sister,"  "our  mother;"  but  "  the  reformers  are  hated  and 
despised,"  and  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century 
is  denounced  "  as  a  desperate  remedy,"  "  a  fearful  judg- 
ment," "  a  deplorable  schism,"  and  •'  its  principles,  if  it 
have  any,  are  to  be  receded  from  more  and  more."  In  a 
word,  one  of  their  own  prophets  uses  this  language : 
"  I  say  anathema  to  the  princij^le  of  Protestantism,  and 
to  all  its  forms,  sects  and  denominations,  especially  the 
Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  and  British  and  American 
Dissenters.  Likewise  to  all  persons  who  knowingly  and 
willingly  and  understanding  what  they  do,  shall  assert, 
either  for  themselves  or  the  Church  of  England,  the 
principle  of  Protestantism,  *  *  *  or  shall  communi- 
cate in  the  temples  of  the  Protestant  sects ;  *  *  *  to 
ALL  SUCH  I  SAY  ANATHEMA  !"*  This  Very  High  Church- 
man should  have  been  a  member  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  where  he  could  have  exercised  his  gifts  to  hia 
heart's  content.  The  nearest  approach  to  such  "  apostol- 
ical benediction"  that  presents  itself  here  is  that  of  "  the 
Presbyterian  Looking  for  the  Cliurch,"  Rev.  F.  S.  Mines, 
who  says  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
"Except  for  her,  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 
would  have  no  other  home  to  flee  unto  from  the  apostate 
sects  than  to  the  bosom  of  Rome !"  Similar  is  that  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Hook,  Vicar  of  Leeds:  "If  it  were  not 
for  her  (the  Episcopal  Church)  in  the  United  States, 
NOTHING  but  the  extremes  of  infidelity  or  fanaticism 
woxdd prevail !"'\  The  reason  he  assigns  is,  "because no 
religion  is  established  there!"  Whether  Dr.  Hook 
would  class  his  meek  "mother  "  of  Rome  with  the  infidels 
or  the  fanatics,  he  leaves  us  in  doubt. 

That  "  this  revival  of  the  exploded  errors  of  Popery," 
call  it  Oxford  Tractariauism,Puseyism,  or  New-7na?iza,  as 
suits  best,  is  simply  the  old  Laudean  scheme  slightly 
modernized,  is  most  obvious.    Thus  of  the  sacrament  of 

*  Til  is  extract  is  from  William  Palmer,  Deacon  in  the  Anglican 
Church. 

t  See  his  Sermon  before  the  (^ueen,  on  "  Hear  the  Church,"  pp. 
7,  8. 


EcJGs  AND  Cheese  good  Tractakian  Diet.  247 


the  Lord's  supper  as  Protestants  celebrate  it,  the  Trac- 
tarians  say :  "  It  is  as  irreverent  as  the  Socinian  heresy," 
&c.  The  sacrament,  as  they  administer  it,  they  on  the 
other  hand  call  "  a  miracle  greater  than  that  of  Cana 
of  Galilee ;"  "  the  bread  and  wine  are  by  priestly  hands 
made  a  saving  victim,"  "the  bread  turned  by  power 
divine  into  his  body,  the  wine  into  his  blood,  &c."  At 
first,  indeed,  they  cautiously  guarded  against  any  sus- 
picion of  a  wish  to  Romanize  the  Church  of  England, 
so  that  even  the  London  Quarterly  Review,  a  High 
Church  periodical,  came  out  explicitly  denying  any  such 
tendency  of  the  Puseyite  system.  But  the  same  keen 
critics  were  soon  obliged  to  take  all  back,  and  acknowl- 
edge that  they  were  deceived.  "The  Tracts  for  the 
Times,"  from  No.  75  to  No.  90,  and  other  works,  opened 
the  eyes  of  all  intelligent  men.  "  Prayers  for  the  dead," 
"  the  ancient  form  of  sacrifice,  wijtb  the  words  altar  and 
mass,"  "  purgatory,  indulgences,  invocation  of  saints, 
the  practice  of  anointing  the  sick,  auricular  confes- 
sion, &c.,"  were  now  openly  defended  as  mattere  of 


Rome  boldly  advocated,  but  Dr.  Pusey  published  direc- 
tions for  keeping  Lent,  apeing  the  ludicrous  culinary 
specialties  of  Romish  bishops :  "  Flesh  meat  *  *  on 
Tuesdays  and  Thursdays  once  only  in  the  day,"  "  eggs 
at  the  single  meal  on  all  days  except,  &c.,"  "cheese, 
under  the  same  circumstances,"  "  broths  are  to  be  ab- 
stained from,  and  butter  not  to  be  eaten,"  &c.,  &c. 
Also  a  "  Christian  Calendar  for  the  members  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church"  made  its  appearance,  showing  on 
what  Sundays  they  must  "deck  the  altar  in  white;  on 
which  in  violet,  scarlet,  black  and  green !"  So  also  the 
weighty  questions  of  "the  dress  of  the  clergy,"  whether 
white  or  black,  surplice,  gown,  &c.,  &c.,  and  of  lights 
upon  the  altar,  or  communion  table,  and  whether  "  ob- 
jectionable if  the  candles  were  not  lighted,"  &c.,  of  the 
"mani23le  to  hangover  the  priest's  left  arm,  chasubles, 
copes,  corporal  cloth  of  delicate  material,  and  marked 
with  the  five  crosses,  &c.,  &c."  Thus,  as  Bishop  Coxe, 
of  Western  New  York,  says,  "the  whole  soul  of  the 
Tractarians  was  speedily  concentrated  in  Rome,  in  the 


faith.     Not  only  were 


superstitions  of 


248  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


introduction  of  Latinisms,  candlesticks,  chasubles  and 
dalmatics,  flower-pots  and  thuribles:"  "a  miserable 
apostasy  followed  and  was  checked."*  He  also  quotes 
"  one  of  the  English  Ritualistic  papers,  containing  pas- 
sages which  are  mostly  idolatrous,"  such  as  these: 

"And  when  to  Jesus  ye  bow  the  knee. 
Cry,  Ave  Maria,  ora  pro  me." 

"Hail,  Mary,  pray  for  me,"  is  pure  Popery.  Along 
with  these  idolatrous  forms,  certain  of  the  same  school 
busied  themselves  with  the  great  posture  question,  and 
arrived  at  the  following  sage  conclusions,  viz.,  "That, 
in  reading  prayers,  the  clergyman  should  look  to  the 
west;  in  reciting  the  creed,  look  towards  the  east;  in 
reading  the  lessons,  towards  the  south,  and  in  burying  a 
Dissenter,  towards  the  north !" 

Such  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  labors  and  purposes 
of  the  Oxford  Tractarians.  A  volume  might  be  filled 
with  the  details.  And  even  after  the  Bishop  of  Oxford 
had  told  his  clergy  in  one  of  his  charges,  that  "  the 
Tracts  were  brought  to  a  close,  and  at  my  personal  re- 
quest," several  editions  of  Tract  90  and  similar  works 
have  been  published  in  England ;  and  a  new  edition  of 
said  No.  90  appeared  in  this  country.f  It  is  obvious 
that  this  effort  to  xmprotestantize  the  Episcopal  Church 
both  in  England  and  in  this  land  "  is  not  dead,"  it  can- 
not even  be  said,  "  it  sleepeth."  Some  years  since  an 
English  clergyman  published  in  London  a  second  edi- 
tion of  the  Direciorium  Anglieanum,t  which  is  circu- 
lated here.  In  reference  to  the  Lord's  supper,  we  read : 
"  The  one  aim  is  to  offer  the  Holy  Sacrifice,"  "  when  the 
consecration  and  adoration  of  the  said  body  are  over," 
"after  the  consecration  and  adoration  of  the  precious 

*  Criterion,  p.  10.  f  Ibid.,  p.  8. 

X  This  Directorium  shows  High  Churchmen  how  "  to  use  incense 
at  Hiffh  celebration  of  tlie  Eucharist."  "  Thurifer  presents  him- 
self, puts  on  the  cassock  and  cotta,  celebrant  puts  incense  into  the 
thuriber,  the  deacon  ministers  the  spom  and  holds  the  boat,  priest 
blesses  the  incense,  the  celebrant  is  incensed,  also  the  altar,  the 
lectern  is  never  incensed  I"  Compare  this  nonsense  with  Christ's 
first  supper  in  Matt.  26:  26-30. 


Popish  Gratitude  for  Tractarianism.  249 


blood,"  "the  chief  assistant  having  incensed  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord."  The  same  Directorium  gives 
instructions  what  to  do,  "  before  transubsiantiation  and 
consecration  of  the  sacrament."  Well  did  Bishop  Coxe 
say,  "  In  connection  with  No.  90,  such  ritualism  would 
soon  finish  the  work  of  thoroughly  Romanizing  us."  Nor 
were  the  English  papists  slow  in  discovering,  as  in  the 
days  of  Laud,  "  a  daily  approach  "  towards  Rome.  In 
a  published  letter  to  Dr.  Newman,  Dr.  Wiseman  ten- 
dered "  tlianks  from  his  heart "  for  "  the  information 
that  he  and  his  friends  were  opening  their  eyes  to  the 
beauties  and  perfections"  of  Popery  !  And  Dr.  Mc- 
Hale,  of  Dublin,  declared  "he  would  not  be  surprised 
that  even  the  present  generation  should  witness  the  au- 
gust temple  of  Westminster  Abbey  again  lit  up  with  the 
splendors  of  that  (Romish)  pure  and  ancient  worship!" 

How  far  these  anticipations  of  the  high  priests  of 
Popery  in  England  and  Ireland  are  likely  to  be  realized, 
it  is  of  course  impossible  to  decide.  Some  thirty  of  the  bish- 
ops and  deans  have,  for  the  most  part  in  very  emphatic 
terms,  denounced  the  whole  Tractarian  movement ;  but 
after  all,  their  "  charges  "  are,  to  a  great  extent,  a  mere 
brutum  fulmen.  Priestly  authors  of  "  the  Tracts  for  the 
Times  "  have  not  been  unfrocked — their  popish  senti- 
ments and  practices  have  not  been  recanted — as  regular 
"  apostolical "  teachers,  they  still  eat  the  bread  and 
enjoy  the  emoluments  of  the  Church  of  England.  Some 
of  the  most  forward,  indeed,  have  joined  the  Pope. 

That  a  system  such  as  this,  denounced  by  some  of  the 
highest  dignitaries  of  the  Church  of  England  as  mark- 
ing "  one  of  the  most  eventful  epochs  of  her  history  " — 
"  undermining  the  gospel  "— "  substituting  formality  for 
devotion" — "  cau.sing  schism,  discord  and  distraction," 
&c.,  &c. — that  such  a  "  revival  of  the  worst  doctrines 
and  practices  of  the  Romish  superstition  "  should  have 
found  in  England,  and  in  the  bosom  of  the  Protestant 
Establishment,  a  fertile  soil  in  which'to  scatter  its  seeds 
and  gather  its  harvest,  is  certainly  a  marvel.  How 
shall  we  account  for  a  result  which  almost  makes  us 
blush  for  humanity  ?  Let  us  examine.  Can  we  ascribe 
the  humiliating  result  to  her  "  Calvinistic  articles  and 


250  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


homilies  1"  Hardly.  Take  the  Presbyterian  churches 
of  Scotland  and  the  United  States — has  any  such  down- 
ward movement  ever  made  its  appearance  in  those  Cal- 
vinistic  bodies?  The  Papists  themselves  know  better 
the  influence  of  "  the  great  man  of  the  Protestant  rebel- 
lion." "  Calvin,"  says  the  Romish  Tablet,  "  organized 
the  Reformation  and  gave  it  form,  and  his  spirit  has 
sustained  it  to  the  present  day."  "  It  is  Calvinism  that 
sustains  Methodism,  that  gives  what  little  life  it  has  to 
Lutheranism,  and  that  prevents  a  very  general  return  of 
Anglicans  to  the  bosom  of  the  church."  This  witness  is 
true. 

Can  we  logically  trace  "  the  revival  of  this  oft-refuted 
system,"  which  is  "  so  disgraceful  to  the  church,"  to  her 
"  Arminian  clergy  ?"  We  are  constrained  to  answer,  in 
part  at  least,  in  the  aiBrmative.  Here  is  the  chief  seat 
of  the  disease.  Not  only  were  the  originators  of  the 
Oxford  movement  prominent  clergymen  of  the  Church 
Establishment,  but  their  scheme  of  doctrine,  the  very 
virus  of  the  whole,  was  the  low  Arminianism  of  Popery, 
especially  on  the  subject  of  "justification  and  the  merits 
of  good  works."  "  The  views  of  Luther,"  "  the  common 
doctrine  of  all  the  first  Reformers,"  "  the  corner-stone  of 
the  whole  system  of  redemption,  as  taught  in  the  11th, 
12th  and  13th  of  the  Articles  of  our  church"  (says 
Pearson,  Dean  of  Salisbury),  this  foundation  doctrine  the 
Tractarians  denounced  as  "  radically  and  fundamentally 
monstrous,  and  anti-Christian."  In  this  country,  Bishop 
Mcllvaine  ascribes  it  "  to  a  secret  hostility  to  the  true 
principle  of  justification,"  viz.,  "salvation  by  faith  iu 
Christ  without  the  merit  of  works."  From  this  danger- 
ous delusion  on  the  subject  of  justification  sprang  the 
notions  of  "restraining  sin  by  voluntary  abstinence" — 
"the  bishop  washing,  wiping  and  kissing  the  feet  of 
those  assembled  for  that  purpose  on  Maunday -Thursday 
after  vespers" — "abstinence  iu  Lent  from  an}'thing 
made  of  flesh,  also  all  white  meats  as  they  come  from 
flesh,  eggs,  milk,  butter,  cheese,"  the  whole  brood  of 
"fopperies"  and  " fooleries "  of  Ritualism.  Ecclesias- 
tics who  have  no  true  piety,  naturally  turn  to  the  gaudy 
frippery  of  Formalism  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  an  uneasy 


Tractaeian  Postukes  and  Impostuees.  251 


conscience,  converting  "the  Christian  religion  into  a 
religion  of  postures  and  impostures,  of  circumflexious 
and  genuflexions,  of  garments  and  vestures,  of  ostenta- 
tion and  parade."  This  was  the  verdict  of  Sidney 
Smith  on  Puseyism.  The  witty  canon  of  St.  Paul's,  \n 
explaining  the  reasons  of  what  he  styles  "  the  wretched 
ignorance  and  indifference  of  almost  all  in  the  country 
villages  of  England,"  charges  it  upon  the  clergy  thus  : 
"Why  call  in  the  aid  of  paralysis  to  piety  ?  Is  it  a  rule 
of  oratory  to  handle  the  most  sublime  truths  in  the 
dullest  lauguage  and  in  the  driest  manner  ?  Is  sin  to 
be  taken  from  men  as  Eve  from  Adam,  by  casting  them 
into  a  deep  slumber .«"'  His  descriptiou  of  religion  at  the 
West  End  of  London — the  court  end — is  that  "  the  con- 
gregations were  almost  entirely  made  up  of  ladies,  and 
these  in  an  appearance  of  listlessness,  indiflTerence  and 
impatience  very  little  congenial  to  our  ideas  of  a  place 
of  worship."  "  I  am  afraid,"  he  adds,  "that  it  must  in 
some  little  degree  be  attributed  to  our  forms  of  worship, 
and  to  the  clergy  themselves." 

Our  surprise  and  indignation  at  the  favorable  reception 
of  the  Tracts  and  their  anti-Christian  sentiments  by  so 
large  a  portion  of  High  Churchmen,  is  greatly  increased 
when  we  glance  at  some  of  the  performances  of  these 
Oxford  interpreters  of  Scripture.  How  can  we  argue 
with  men  whose  principles  are  so  totally  different  from 
those  commonly  received  among  mankind?  We  pre- 
sent a  few  specimens  fi'om  their  accredited  writings. 
When  we  question  the  arrogant  claims  of  the  Episcopal 
clergy  and  ask  by  what  authority  thoy  speak,  the  reply 
is,  "  He  that  despiseth  you,  despiseth  me ;"  when  we 
treat  lightly  their  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession,  the 
answer  is,  "  Esau  a  profane  person,"  &c.  So  the  miracle 
of  the  consecration  of  the  Eucharist,  is  "  exalted  above 
that  of  Cana;"  and  the  words,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me,"  they  judge  to  be  the  most  natural  terms  for  our 
Lord  to  have  used,  if  he  meant  to  say,  "  sacrifice  this  in 
remembrance  of  me !" 

With  such  expounders  of  "  the  oracles  of  God,"  who 
can  have  serious  controversy — with  men  who  are  so  en- 
amored with  the  veriest  dreams  and  whimsies  of  the 


^62  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


fathers  as  to  claim  all  reverence  for  that  fancy  of  Justin 
and  others,  that  "the  ass  and  the  colt "  for  which  Christ 
sent  his  disciples,  are  to  be  interpreted  severally  of  "  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  believers,"  and  also  attach  much 
weight  to  that  of  Origen,  who  rather  expounds  the  said 
"  ass  and  colt  "  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament — with 
men  wlio  treat  with  gravity  the  various  expositions  of 
tlie  fathers,  of  the  "  five  barley  loaves,"  some  supposing 
tliem  to  indicate  the  "  five  senses,"  and  others  the  "  five 
books  of  Moses !" 

So  the  same  exquisite  teachers  of  Tractarian  Chistian- 
ity  profess  to  believe  "  that  the  true  doctrine  of  baptism 
will  prove  a  preservative  against  forming  either  a  Nep- 
tunian or  Vulcanian  theory  of  geology,"  and  that  the 
"  vertebral  column  and  its  lateral  projections  "  were  de- 
signed to  afford  "  a  type  and  adumbration  of  the  cross ;" 
"  that  St.  Anthony's  nonsensical  conflicts  with  devils 
may  not  unworthily  be  compared  with  the  temptations 
of  our  Lord ;"  but  that  there  is  "  no  reason  to  believe 
the  private  student  of  Scripture  would  ordinarily  gain  a 
knowledge  of  the  gospel  from  it."  Such  men,  whether 
in  the  ministry  or  not,  were  worthy  converts  and  teach- 
ers of  Tractarian  religion. 

There  is  some  relief,  however,  when  we  come  to  read 
their  "Lives  of  the  Saints" — for  then  our  sense  of  the 
ludicrous  takes  the  place  of  all  other  impressions.  We 
hold  our  sides  while  reading  of  "  a  hyena  asking  absolu- 
tion of  a  hermit  for  killing  a  sheep,  and  of  a  woman 
turned  by  magic  into  a  mare" — that  "St.  Hilarian 
successfully  exorcised  a  huge  Bactrian  camel,  .and  that 
two  lions  came  to  assist  St.  Anthony  in  burying  the 
hermit  Paul,  digging  the  grave  with  their  feet,  and  then 
departing  with  the  blessing  of  the  saint ;"  and  of  the 
same  wonder-working  saint,  Mr.  Newman  relates  with 
great  gravity,  that  "  hearing  one  day  a  loud  knocking 
at  his  cell  door,  he  found  '  a  tall,  meagre  person '  there, 
who  gave  his  name  as  Satan.  '  He  had  come,'  he  said, 
'  to  beg  a  truce  from  the  Christians,  whose  reproaches 
and  curses,'  as  he  admitted,  '  had  completely  spoiled  his 
trade  and  disarmed  him  of  all  power  to  do  mischief.' " 
So  of  a  certain  wonder-working  saint,  by  name  Ambrose, 


A  Saint  Exorcises  a  Camel.  253 


who  fairly  records  of  himself  a  deliberate  ?ie,  justifies  it, 
and  then  exclaims,  "  O  beatum  mendacium — O  blessed 
lie!"  The  lie  was,  "that  he  had  instip;ated  a  certain 
bishop  to  burn  a  Jewish  synagogue,"  which  he  admits 
to  be  a  falsehood — the  object  being  to  induce  tlie  Empe- 
ror Thoodosius  to  reverse  his  sentence  against  said  bish- 
op, that  "  he  should  rebuild  the  synagogue !" 

Now  to  "  an  Arminian  clergy,"  especially  those  of 
them  who  were  ready  to  approve  such  developments  of 
superior  wisdom  and  piety  as  these,  the  transition  to 
Popery  was  most  natural  and  easy.  And  if  they  had 
not  soon  collected  a  considerable  body  of  followers,  the 
result  would  have  contradicted  all  past  history  of  simi- 
lar impostures.  To  us,  indeed,  the  whole  seems  a  curious 
phenomenon — for  "  we  seem  to  be  transported  into  a  new 
world,  where  truth  and  falsehood  change  nature  ;  where 
the  three  angles  of  a  triangle  are  no  longer  equal  to 
two  right  angles,  and  twice  two  do  not  make  four ;  and 
where  ci-ime  of  unusual  turpitude  may  be  considered  the 
most  exalted  virtue,  so  as  to  inspire  absolute  envy  " — "a 
world  with  as  different  a  set  of  inhabitants  from  our 
common  sense  bipeds,  as  those  of  Saturn,  who,  according 
to  Voltaire's  little  tale,  have  seventy-two  senses,  ninety- 
six  faculties  of  mind,  and  have  discovered  in  matter  no 
less  than  three  hundred  essential  properties."*  So  the 
moral  principles  of  these  Tractarians,  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Newman,  clearly  justify,  as  Bishop  Mcllvainef  has 
proved,  "falsehood,"  "the  mask  of  deceit,"  "artifice," 
"  fraud  for  curing  diseases  of  the  soul " — this  "  economy  " 
Mr.  Newman  approves  as  "  a  safe  guide  for  Christians." 
This  is  true  Popery — for  Dens'  Theology  says,  "  a  priest 
may  deny  that  he  is  one,  because  he  tells  only  an  official 
lie."  Vol.  2,  p.  65.  Mosheim  also  convicts  many  of 
the  early  fathers  of  the  doctrine  that  "fraud  was  some- 
times justifiable  for  a  holy  end — as  an  available  auxili- 
ary to  truth." 

*  For  these  and  otlier  statements  in  tliese  last  paraj^raphf!,  see  the 
admirable  articles  on  Puaeyism  in  the  Edinburgh  lleview  for 
July,  1843,  and  February,  1845.  The  references  in  the  margin 
to  the  several  statements  are,  besides  the  Tracts  for  the  Times, 
Sewell's  Christian  Morals,  Froude's  Eemains,  Newman's  Church 
of  the  Fathers,  and  British  Critic. 

tSee  his  Charge,  Sept.,  1843. 


25 i  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


But  the  subject  is  not  yet  exhausted.  Besides  "the 
Calvinistic  Articles  "  and  '•  the  Arminian  clergy,"  there 
remains  "the  Popish  Liturgy."  Here,  at  least,  we  de- 
tect the  very  "  root  and  fatness  "  of  the  Tractarian  upas. 
Other  Protestant  bodies  have  had  an  Arminian  clergy, 
and  still  have ;  but  without  an  exception  they  look  with 
as  profound  wonderment  as  Calvinists  can  do  upon  the 
strange  developments  of  Oxfordism.  The  Earl  of  Chat- 
ham had  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  styling  his  own 
Episcopal  Prayer  Book  a  "  Popish  Liturgy."  This  can 
be  proved : 

1.  The  defence  of  exclusive  forms  of  prayer  for  pub- 
lic worship,  surrenders  that  question  as  against  all  other 
Protestant  churches,  to  the  Romanists.  Even  Palmer, 
in  his  Origines  Liturgicce,  says  "  there  is  little  doubt 
that  Christian  liturgies  were  not  at  first  committed  to 
writing ;"  and  that  "  several  forms  have  been  different 
from  the  most  remote  period."  The  Lord's  Prayer,  the 
only  set  form  in  the  New  Testament,  was  never  used,  so 
far  as  we  know,  by  the  inspired  Apostles,  though  Christ 
says,  "  When  ye  pray,  say,  Our  Father,"  &e.  In  the 
worship  of  the  synagogue,  the  Old  Testament  gives  no 
hint  of  forms  of  prayer.  Did  Solomon  use  a  book  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple  ?  Philo  and  Josephus  are  equal- 
ly silent  on  the  subject.  As  to  the  ancient  fathers,  Tertul- 
lian,  in  the  latter  part  of  century  second,  says :  "  Looking 
towards  heaven,  we  pray  without  a  monitor ;  because 
we  pray  from  the  heart."  "  We  praise  God,"  says  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  of  the  same  century,  "according  io  our  ability, 
with  prayer  and  thanksgiving."  "  We  pray,"  adds 
Origen,  "  closing  the  eyes  of  the  senses,  but  lifting  up 
those  of  the  mind,  according  to  our  ability ;"  and  Justin 
says,  "  Christians  rose  up  to  pray."  Other  similar  au- 
thorities might  be  given. 

2.  It  was  shown  in  Chapters  V  and  VI,  that  the 
present  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  was  compiled 
from  five  Romish  mass-books,  all  different,  though  all 
used  in  separate  bishoprics  ;  and  Milner,  the  Episcopal 
historian,  admits  that  up  to  the  time  of  William  the 
Conqueror,  "  every  Romish  diocese  had  its  appropriate 
Liturgy."  Vol.  2,  p.  615.    For  these,  among  other  rea- 


The  Pope  AccErxs  the  Prayer  Book.  255 


sons,  Lord  Chatham  used  the  phrase,  "  Popish  L'turgy." 
It  was  before  shown  that  on  the  earnest  representations 
of  Bucer,  Martyr  and  Calvin,  "prayers  for  the  dead, 
the  use  of  chrism  (or  oil)  and  extreme  unction,  with 
other  ineptise  "  (fooleries),  were  expunged ;  but  enough 
remained  to  predispose  the  people,  especially  unconvert- 
ed Arminians,  to  hanker  after  Popery — or  at  least  to 
prepare  their  minds  for  it  when  presented  by  such  Jes- 
uits as  Drs.  Newman,  Pusey  and  other  Tractarians.  It 
is  notorious,  too,  that  the  Papists  have  always  expressed 
a  kindly  fellow-feeling  for  High  Church  Episcopacy, 
because  of  the  points  of  resemblance  to  their  forms  of 
worship.  Thus  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism,  the  ab- 
solution of  the  sick,  the  numerous  festivals  and  lasts,  the 
litany,  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  supper,  &c.,  are  all  imi- 
tations of  the  Popish  mass-book  services.  While  it  is 
true  that  the  notion  of  apostolical  succession  and  its 
related  exclusiveness  is  not  formally  asserted  in  the 
Prayer  Book,  yet  "  the  three  orders  of  ministers,  bish- 
ops, priests  and  deacons,"  are  pronounced  to  be  "  evi- 
dent to  all  men  diligently  reading  holy  Scripture  and 
ancient  authors."  These  are  of  the  bone  and  sinew  of 
Popery — so  much  so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  as 
against  High  Church  Episcopacy,  she  has  the  better  of 
the  argument  in  its  chief  aspects.  It  is  a  curious  fact 
asserted  by  Strype,  Burnet  and  Collier,  that  the  Pojje, 
through  his  nuncio,  offered  to  ratify  "  the  Prayer  Book  " 
for  England,  if  Elizabeth  would  own  his  supi'emacy  ! 
Presb.  Review,  Jan.,  1843. 

3.  "  To  this  day,"  says  Macaulay,  "  the  constitution, 
doctrines  and  services  of  the  Church  of  England  retain 
the  visible  marks  of  the  compromise  from  which  she 
sprung."  "  Her  prayers  and  thanksgivings  derived  from 
the  ancient  (Romish)  breviaries,  are  very  generally 
such  that  Cardinals  Fisher  and  Pole  might  have  heart- 
ily joined  in  them.  A  controversialist,"  he  adds,  "  who 
puts  an  Arminian  sense  on  her  articles  and  homilies,  will 
be  pronounced  by  candid  men  to  be  as  unreasonable  as 
a  controversialist  who  denies  that  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration  can  be  discovered  in  her  liturgy." 


256  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Toplady,  an  Episcopal  presbyter,  tells  us  that  Arch- 
bishop Laud,  who  was  "  beheaded  for  the  crime  of 
treason,  was  the  first  Arminian  primate  since  the  Refor- 
mation." And  in  1661  the  commissioners  under  Charles 
II,  appointed  to  revise  the  Liturgy,  make  this  candid 
confession :  "  Our  first  Reformers,  out  of  their  great 
wisdom,  did  at  that  time  compose  the  Liturgy  so  as  to 
win  upon  the  Papists  and  to  draw  them  into  their  church 
communion,  by  verging  as  little  as  they  could  from  the 
Romish  forms  before  in  use"*  Well  might  the  Papists 
boast  "  that  the  book  was  a  compliance  with  them  in  a 
great  part  of  their  services,  and  were  not  a  little  confirm- 
ed in  their  superstition  and  idolatry."  Hence  at  one 
period  the  House  of  Lords  fouud  it  necessary  to  appoint 
a  body  of  divines  to  take  into  consideration  sundry  inno- 
vations, &c.  Among  these  were  "  turning  the  communion 
table  altar-wise  and  calling  it  altar — bowing  towards  it, 
or  to  the  east  many  times  with  three  co/i^feea— advancing 
candlesticks  upon  the  altar,  and  crucifixes  and  images 
upon  the  altar-cloth,  so-called — the  minister  turning  his 
back  to  the  west  and  his  face  to  the  east,  when  he  pro- 
nounces the  creed  or  reads  prayers,"  &c.,  &c.  All 
these  things  show  how  easy  it  was,  under  Tractarian 
guidance,  for  liturgical  worshippers  to  slide  into  the  ex- 
ploded mummeries  of  Romish  Ritualism.  So  Dr.  Hook 
tells  us  "  that  under  Elizabeth  the  rubric  in  King  Ed- 
ward's book  condemning  the  corporeal  presence  in  the 
sacrament,  was  left  out" — the  reason  he  assigns  was, 
"  that  the  notion  of  a  corporeal  presence  might  remain 
a  speculative  opinion " — "  the  Queen  desiring  to  unite 
the  nation  as  near  as  possible  in  one  faith!"!  And 
Hallam  says,  "  the  words  used  in  distributing  the  ele- 
ments were  so  contrived  as  to  offend  neither  the  Popish, 
or  Lutheran,  or  Zwinglian  communicants."  Thus  the 
form  now  stands  both  in  America  and  England.  Cer- 
tainly very  accommodating. 

4.  These  Popish  tendencies  have,  both  here  and  in 
England,  derived  additional  force  from  the  fulsome  and 

*  Coleman's  Primitive  Church,  p.  441. 
t  Church  Diet.,  p.  331. 


Foolish  Phvise  of  tiik  Liturgy.  2-57 


profane  admiraition  *  awarded  to  the  '•  Book  of  Common 
Prayer" — and  that  not  by  Episcopalians  exclusively. 
When  a  set  of  forms  of  human  origin,  with  such  a  suspi- 
cious ancestry  and  questionable  history,  is  characterized 
as  "  literally  the  language  of  angels  " — "  not  a  human 
composition" — "sublime  strains  of  a  holy  liturgy" — • 
"perfection  in  worship  " — "  divine  in  its  composition" — 
"golden  language  of  our  liturgy" — "if  angels  needed 
prayer,  they  might  use  it,"  &c.  —  all  this,  even  from 
"  the  three  oi-ders,"  is  bad  enough.  But  this  is  not 
the  worst  of  it.  Others,  even  some  Presbyterians,  have 
tacitly  or  formally  consented  to  this  foolish  adulation, 
and  a  few,  perhaps  from  not  having  read  the  whole 
book,  have  talked  about  the  "  beautiful  liturgy,"  &c. 
Now  we  charge  that  these  high  praises  are  virtually 
given  to  Rome.  For  is  not  the  "  Book  of  Prayer " 
chiefly  a  translation  of  the  Romish  breviary  ?  And  if 
such  "  perfection  in  worship  "  be  found  in  that  idola- 
trous and  superstitious  body,  how  easily  follows  the 
inference — "  a  bad  tree  does  not  produce  a  good  fruit, 
nor  a  bitter  fountain  sweet  water."  Thus  Rome  is  glo- 
rified, and  her  mummeries  partially  justified. 

It  becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  examine  closely 
these  claims  of  the  Liturgy  to  eulogies  which  are  seldom 
bestowed  by  their  authors  upon  the  word  of  God. 

Be  it  observed,  tlien,  that  if  a  man  or  body  of  men 
have  need  of  crutches,  let  them  use  them  ;  but  when  they 
gravely  proceed  to  recommend  such  helps  to  others  as 

*  There  are  many  exceptions,  even  among  Episcopalians,  to 
this  excessive  admiration  of  their  Church  Liturgy.  Thus  a  me- 
morial, some  years  since,  was  laid  before  tlie  Council  of  Bishops 
by  a  number  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  containing,  inter  alia,  this: 
"  Our  church,  rastricted  to  her  present  canonical  means  and  ap- 
pliances, to  her  fixed  and  unvarying  modes  of  public  worship, 
her  traditional  customs  and  usages,  is  incompetent  to  do  the  work  of 
the  Lord  in  this  land  and  this  age — that  is,  she  is  too  much  bound 
up  to  certain  set  ways  to  work  freely  and  easily  beyond  her  spe- 
cial range.  She  is  not  equipped  for  availing  herself  of  opportu- 
nities as  they  occur.  She  is  encumbered  by  her  own  apparatus. 
She  is  like  David  in  Saul's  armor,  but  not  like  him  expert  in 
using  the  sling  and  the  stone."  "  Thus  there  is  fault  in  her  modes 
and  methods  themselves,  not  simply  the  application  of  them." 


2.3 


258  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


far  excelling  nature's  own  instruments  of  locomotion, 
this  is  carrying  the  thing  a  little  too  far.  An  unfortu- 
nate dumb  child  may  write  his  requests  to  a  kind  father 
and  have  them  read,  but  he  never  undertakes  to  prove 
to  others  that  this  is  better  than  the  use  of  the  organs 
of  speech.  Nor  would  be  wish  to  be  limited  to  the  same 
written  form  for  each  day  of  the  year. 

The  volume  is  called  "the  Book  of  Common  Prayer," 
but  of  the  362  pages  of  the  copy  before  us,  a  compara- 
tively small  portion  m  prayer  at  all.  Of  the  first  twelve 
pages,  of  the  "  order  for  daUy  morning  and  evening 
prayer,"  not  far  from  eight  pages  (including  the 
creeds)  are  occupied  with  quotations  from  Scripture, 
made  with  more  or  less  exactness,  leaving  four  pages 
for  prayers.  Both  "orders"  are,  to  a  great  extent, 
in  the  same  words  for  morning  and  evening  service, 
but  many  of  the  Scripture  texts  having  nothing  of 
the  nature  of  prayer  ;  as  for  example,  "  Repent  ye,  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  &c.  Of  course  no 
objection  can  be  made  to  the  public  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  such  texts  are  not  prayer.  Then  follow 
four  more  pages  of  "prayers  and  thanksgivings  upon 
several  occasions,"  "  for  rain,  for  fair  weather,  thanks- 
giving of  women  after  child-birth,  &c.,"  on  to  page  20. 
From  the  20th  to  the  100th  page,  we  find  nothing  but 
extracts  from  the  common  translation  of  the  Bible,  to  be 
read,  and  introduced,  on  each  Sunday  of  the  year  and 
many  saints  days,  by  a  little  prayer,  varying  in  length 
from  Jive  to  fourteen  lines,  where  each  page  of  double 
column  contains  a  hundred  and  six  lines.  There  are 
eighty-six  of  these  little  prayers,  a  few  of  them  repeated 
verbally,  one  at  least  three  times.  To  the  large  extracts 
here  made  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  (not  prayers),  to  be 
read  to  the  people,  none  but  Romanists  and  infidels  can 
make  the  least  objection.  But  to  speak  of  the  eighty- 
six  little  prayers,  filling  about  eight  of  the  eighty  pages, 
as  "the  language  of  angels"  "sublime  strains,"  "not  hu- 
man composition,"  &c  ,  is  utterly  absurd.  As  to  these 
little  prayers  being  "  inspired  compositions,"  they  are 
no  more  so  than  those  of  any  of  the  numerous  volumes 
of  prayer  in  circulation.    Take  these  examples  :    "  Let 


Tautology  of  the  Prayer  Book.  259 


tliy  mercifid  ears,  O  Lord,  be  open  to  the  prayers  of  thy 
liurahle  servant,"  <fec.  "  O  Lord,  raise  up,  we  pray  thee, 
thy  power  and  come  among  us,  &c."  Yet  we  are  with 
all  gravity  assured  that  it  requires  "  an  educated  and 
cultivated  taste  to  appreciate  sueh  perfection  in  worship  !" 
And  prayer  without  these  aids  is  denounced  as  "  the 
miserable,  empty,  off-hand  worship  of  a  sect!"  The 
plain  truth  is,  that  if  we  take  away  from  these  hun- 
dred pages  of  the  "  Liturgy  "  all  that  is  literally  (or 
nearly  so)  the  language  of  the  devotional  parts  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  remainder  is  but  very  plain  com- 
mon-place, utterly  undeserving  of  the  eulogiums  be- 
stowed upon  it  as  "the  sublime  strains  of  holy  worship-" 
Any  ordinary  Christian  can  satisfy  himself  on  this 
point,  by  examining  for  himself.  Even  in  "the  Canticle," 
on  page  4,  amid  tlie  beautiful  sentences  of  the  inspired 
PsalmLst,  how  flat  and  unprofitable  to  stumble  over 
such  as  these :  "  O  ye  wells,  bless  the  Lord,"  "  O  ye 
whales,"  &c.  Then  as  to  the  tautologies  in  several 
places  of  "  the  morning  and  evening  service,"  such  as 
"  when  we  assemble  and  meet  together,"  "  moderate  rain 
and  showers,"  "  immoderate  rain  and  waters  " — -just  as  if 
there  could  be  rain  without  showers  and  immoderate 
rain  without  vuiters — "  create  and  make  in  us  new  and 
contrite  hearts" — these  are  illustrations  of  "educated 
and  cultivated  taste,"  too  exalted  for  ignorant  Presby- 
terians. So  the  phrase,  "  Have  mercy  upon  us,"  occurs 
over  a  dozen  times,  and  with  the  addition,  "  miserable 
sinners,"  eif/ht  more  times.  "Good  Lord,  deliver  us,"  is 
said  eif/ht  times,  and  "  we  beseech  thee  to  hear  us,  good 
Lord,"  is  repeated  sixteen  times.  On  communion  occa- 
sions, "  Lord,  have  mercy  on  us,  &c.,"  occurs  ten  times. 
So  we  meet  tautologies  such  as  these,  "  acknowledge  and 
confess,"  "  dissemble  nor  cloak,"  "  humble  and  lowly," 
"requisite  and  necessary,"  "pray  and  beseech  you," 
"pardoneth  and  absolveth,"  "rule  and  govern,"  "re- 
mission and  forgiveness,"  "  craft  and  subtilty,"  &c.,  &c. 
But,  perhaps,  all  this  belongs  to  "  the  choirs  of  arch- 
angels," and,  therefore,  is  too  high  for  any  but  those  of 
"cultivated  taste!" 

We  flo  not  very  much  object  to  the  repetition  of  the 


260  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Lord's  Prayer  three  times  every  Sabbath,  for,  indeed,  it  is 
a  gem  among  the  hundred  or  more  big  and  little  forms. 
But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it  is  consistent  with 
"  good  taste,"  to  say  nothing  of  edification,  to  iterate 
and  reiterate  within  two  pages  the  following  :  "  From 
the  crafts  and  assaults  of  the  devil,"  "  from  all  the  de- 
ceits of  the  devil,"  "from  the  craft  and  subtilty  of 
the  devil,"  "  good  Lord  deliver  us !"  Are  not  these  vain 
repetitions  ?  They  would  be  bad  even  in  what  is  called 
"  a  stupid  prayer  meeting,"  but  in  a  Presbyterian  pul- 
pit, some  High  Churchmen  might  begin  to  think  of  "  O 
Baal,  help  us,"  "  O  Baal,  help  us,"  in  the  days  of  Eli- 
jah. Tiiere  is  something,  too,  in  the  "  prayer  of  St. 
Chrysostom,"  which  is  to  be  said  twice  each  Sabbath, 
that  looks  very  like  a  misquotatiou,  in  what  is  called 
"the  divine  promise  that  where  two  or  three  are  gather- 
ed together  in  thy  name,  thou  wilt  grant  their  requests." 
Our  blessed  Lord's  promise  is,  "  there  am  I  in  the  midst 
of  them  ;"  but  the  "  granting  of  their  requests  "  is  not  in 
the  text,  and  depends  upon  other  conditions. 

As  regards  the  quality  of  appropriateness,  the  late 
Prof  Leonard  AVoods,  of  Andover,  has  well  observed 
that  the  prayer  consisting  of  one  sentence,  for  example 
for  "the  17th  Sunday  after  Trinity,"  is  no  more  adapted 
to  that  than  any  other  Sunday."  What  imaginable  rea- 
son is  there  that  on  the  17th  we  should  pray  "  to  be 
given  to  all  good  works,"  rather  than  "  to  withstand 
temptations,"  "  or  with  pure  hearts  and  minds  to  follow 
thee,"  as  it  stands  on  the  18th.  The  same  remark  ap- 
plies to  most  of  the  other  eighty-four  little  prayers ; 
though  appointed  for  special  occasions,  they  are  equally 
suitable  for  any  others.  This  is  not  the  style  in  which 
prophets,  apostles  and  martyrs  were  accustomed  to  pray. 

Prof  Woods  also  suggests  the  puerility  of  the  Rubric, 
which  lays  down  this  rule,  "  That  before  every  lesson 
(from  Scripture)  the  minister  shall  say, '  Here  beginneth 
such  a  chapter  or  verse,'  and  after  every  lesson,  '  Here 
endeth  the  first  or  the  second  lesson.' "  "  It  is  indeed 
proper  the  minister  should  state  to  the  congregation 
what  portion  of  Scripture  is  to  be  read  ;"  "  but  what 
necessity  always  to  say  to  the  people  who  have  tlie  '  les- 


Singular  Puerilities  of  the  Liturgy.  '201 


son '  in  the  Prayer  Book  right  before  them,  '  Here 
endeth  the  first  or  the  second  lesson !'  As  well  say  at 
the  close  of  every  prayer  that  is  read, '  Here  endeth  the 
■prayer  !'  "*  It  is  singular  how  soon  we  become  recon- 
ciled to  such  practices,  especially  if  venerable  fur  age, 
and  adopted  in  matters  of  religion  !  Suppose  Mr.  Web- 
ster, in  the  midst  of  an  eloquent  oration  before  Con- 
gress, and  being  about  to  quote  Blackstoue,  had  paused 
and  said,  "  Here  beginneth  the  10th  chapter,  section 
1,  of  the  Commentaries  r  And,  then,  when  througli 
with  the  extract,  had  added,  "  Here  endeth  chapter  lOlh, 
section  1 Would  not  his  audience  have  thought  him 
demented?  Yet  there  is  just  the  same  reason  in  this 
case  as  in  the  other.  Indeed,  the  case  of  the  priest  and 
bishop  is  much  worse  than  that  of  the  senator,  for  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  each  senator  would  have  Black- 
stone  open  in  his  hands,  and  know  beforehand  where  the 
extract  begins  and  ends  ! 

In  the  Episcopal  service,  says  Dr.  Woods,  "  the 
whole  congregation  repeat  three  times  the  Lord's  Prayer 
each  Sabbath.  Everything  of  this  kind  appears  to  me 
a  real  hindrance  to  devotion."  "  The  Church  of  Eng- 
land Quarterly  "  for  1855,  after  stating  that  "  our  ser- 
vices are  generally  conceded  to  be  too  long,"  adds  this : 
"  There  is,  no  one  will  deny,  much  repetition  in  them,  as 
at  present  conducted,  and  the  recitatioTi  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  six  times  on  a  sacramental  morning,  may  be 
taken  as  an  instance." 

We  have  in  former  chapters  exposed  the  superstitious 
and  dangerous  nature  of  certain  parts  of  the  forms  for 
administering  baptism,  burial  of  the  dead,  &c.  The 
only  other  points  to  which  we  will  direct  attention,  are 
found  in  the  communion  service,  and  in  the  form  for 
ordaining  priests  and  bishops.  We  find  here  several 
reasons  to  prove  the  appropriateness  of  the  phrase,  "a 
popish  liturgy." 

1.  In  celebrating  the  Lord's  supper,  we  are  told  the 
priest  "  shall  say  the  prayer  of  consecration."  While 
thus  employed,  he  must  not  only  "break  the  bread," 

"Dr.  Woods'  Objections  to  Episcopacy,  p.  121, 


262  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


"  lay  his  hand  upon  all  the  bread,"  but  also  "  take  the 
cup  into  his  hand,"  and  "lay  his  hand  upon  every  vessel 
in  which  there  is  any  wine  to  he  consecrated."  Then,  if 
by  any  mis-calculation  "  the  bread  or  wine  be  spent  be- 
fore all  have  communicated,"  the  priest,  we  are  told, 
must  go  back  and  begin  again,  "  repeating  the  prayer 
of  consecration."  And  "if  any  of  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  remain  after  the  communion,  it  shall 
not  be  carried  out  of  the  church,  but  the  minister  and 
other  communicants  shall,  immediately  after  the  bless- 
ing, reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same."  Now  explain  all 
this  mysterious  language  as  they  please,  here  is  evident- 
ly a  fat  soil  for  the  seeds  of  superstition,  Traetarianism 
and  Popery,  viz.,  (as  Bishop  Mcllvaine  expresses  it)  "a 
repetition  and  renewal  of  the  sacrifice  on  the  cross,  by 
an  actual  offering  of  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
by  a  sacrificing  priesthood."  For  when  the  people  com- 
mune, "all  devoutly  kneeling,"  the  priest  must  say, 
"  The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  given 
for  thee,  preserve  thy  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting 
life.  Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ 
died  for  thee,  &c."  "  The  blood  of  our  Lord  Jes^s 
Christ,  which  was  shed  for  thee,  preserve  thy  soul  and 
body  unto  everlasting  life.  Drink  this  in  remembrance, 
&c."  Every  unprejudiced  mind  will  find  here  much 
tending,  as  the  Bishop  of  Ohio  expresses  it,  "  to  the  full- 
orbed  system  of  Traetarianism,  altar,  priest  and  sacri- 
fice." There  are  other  passages  in  the  volume,  especial- 
ly the  XXXIst  Article,  which  utterly  condemn  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation,  "  sacrifices  of  masses,  the 
priest  oflering  Christ  lor  the  living  and  dead,"  "  as 
blasphemous  and  dangerous  deceits."  Yet  in  the  very 
teeth  of  such  teaching,  a  book  published  by  the  "  Gen- 
eral Protestant  Episcopal  S.  S.  Union,"  giving  the  lan- 
guage of  one  of  the  priests,  says,  "  I  can  now  worship 
God  with  SACEiFiCE,  *  *  *  as  the  Jew  laid  on  his 
altar  the  lamb,  &c."  "It  is  the  cnly  pure  ofll'ering  on 
eanh,  &c."*  Elsewhere,  indeed,  he  calls  the  elements 
"  bread  and  wine,"  but  still  "pleading  on  our  altar  for 

*  Presbyterian  Clergyniau  Looking,  &q. 


TuAYER  Book  Remnants  of  PopEiiY.  263 


the  sins  of  the  people!"  A  very  slight  acquaiutaace 
■with  the  "Tracts  for  the  Times "  will  f^liow  that  their 
authors  disclose  much  more  plainly  the  tciukiity  towards 
Popery.  Even  Philpotts,  the  Bishop  of  l%xeter,  in- 
structs his  clergy,  that  "in  this  sacrament  tlicrc!  is  an 
actual  communication  of  the  sacrificed  body  and  Mood  of 
Christ."  Others,  however,  boldly  s|H'ak  out  thus:  "the 
miracle  of  the  Eucharist,"  "the  very  body  of  (Jlirist 
which  is  in  heaven  is  also  on  the  a/fur,"  &<■.,  itc.  Of 
course  "the  very  same  body"  may  be  in  a  hundred  or  a 
thousand  or  ten  thousand  different  places  at  the  same 
moment,  and  in  millions  of  men's  mouths  at  the  same 
instant  in  all  quarters  of  the  globe !  Yet  all  the  while 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God  in  glory  !! 

It  is  an  instructive  fact  that  the  fn-ms,  as  now  used 
in  the  Prayer  Book,  '•  the  body  of  our  Lord,"  &c.,  "  the 
blood  of  our  Lord,"  &c.,  were  not  used  in  the  book 
adopted  under  King  Edward  V 1.  Then  they  read  thus : 
"  Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance,"  &c.  "  Drink 
this  in  remembrance,"  &c.  No  "  body  and  blood  "  men- 
tioned. The  present  forms  were  introduced  under  Eliza- 
beth,* who,  as  all  know,  was  strongly  inclined  to 
Popery,  having  a  crucifix  and  lighted  candles  in  her  pri- 
vate chapel,  and  only  restrained  by  providential  circum- 
stances from  many  other  superstitions.  Her  object  was, 
as  the  historian  Froude  tells  us,  "  so  to  frame  the  formu- 
las that  they  might  admit  of  either  a  Catholic  or  Pro- 
testant interpretation,"  but  it  is  easy  to  see  to  which 
side  they  incline.  Here,  then,  is  additional  illustration 
of  "  the  perfect  worship,"  "  the  golden  wordis,"  &c.,  of 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer! 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  substitution  of  a  form  of  words 
composed  by  man,  in  the  place  of  Christ's  own  form,  as 
several  times  recorded  by  an  inspired  pen,  strikes  us  as 
savoring  of  proj'aneness.  Paul  tells  us,  "  I  received  of 
the  Lord  that  the  Lord  Jesus  said.  Take,  eat — this  is 
my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you."  And  in  Matthew  : 
"He  took  the  cup,  saying.  Drink  ye  all  of  it;  for  this 
is  my  blood,  &c."    With  a  few  slight  verbal  variations 

*  Fronde's  History  of  England,  vol.  7,  p.  82. 


264  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


the  same  is  the  record  everywhere.  Now,  if  our  blessed 
Lord  selected  a  certain  form  of  words,  who  is  presump- 
tuous enough  to  lay  it  aside  and  use  his  own?  Here  is 
Christ's  own  "  inspired  composition,"  literally  so — yet 
priests  and  bishops  drop  it  and  take  up  their  own. 
What  is  worse,  they  compose  and  use  a  substitute  which 
is  strongly  tinctured  with  idolatry.  Where  in  the  in- 
spired record  are  we  taught  to  address  our  Lord's  hu- 
manity separately  from  his  divinity — to  pray  "  that 
the  body  of  our  Lord  may  preserve  soul  and  body,"  or 
"  the  blood  of  our  Lord  preserve  soul  and  body  ?"  If 
with  the  papist  they  believed  that  both  the  bread  and 
the  wine  were  either  separately  or  unitedly  "the  very 
body,  blood,  soul  and  divinity  "  of  the  Saviour,  there 
would  be  at  least  consistency  in  the  prayer.  Would 
they  dare  to  substitute  for  the  form  of  baptism  prescribed 
by  divine  wisdom,  one  of  their  own — for  example,  "  I 
baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  ?"  Yet  the  true 
form  of  baptism  is  only  once  recorded  (Matthew  28 : 
19),  not  repeated  several  times,  as  in  the  Lord's  supper. 
High  Churchmen  can  be  very  zealous  for  scriptural 
forms  when  they  seem  to  favor  their  own  notions.  For 
example,  they  repeat  the  "  Lord's  prayer "  nineteen 
times  in  the  Prayer  Book.  They  think,  no  doubt,  they 
hus  demonstrate  great  reverence  for  the  divine  pattern ! 
But  how  is  it  in  the  Lord's  supper !  Ah,  circumstances 
alter  cases.  The  "pattern  showed  in  the  mount"  is  no 
longer  their  guide.  Yet  they  call  their  "  Prayer  Book  " 
"the  language  of  angels,"  "not  a  human  composition !" 
These  are  brilliant  illustrations  of  "  perfect  worship !" 
These  things  demonstrate  their  origin — ^they  smell  ol' 
Popery. 

2.  "  Our  glorious  Liturgy  " — "  venerable  " — "  heaven- 
ly"— "  divine  " — "  the  sacred  amusement  of  childhood  " 
— "  sets  us  amidst  the  choirs  and  voices  of  angels  and 
archangels !"  It  is  rather  discouraging,  however,  to 
the  poor  and  illiterate  to  be  told  that  "  there  must  be  an 
educated  and  cultivated  taste  to  appreciate  the  beauty  of 
this  perfection  in  worship."  Our  blessed  Lord  taught 
in  his  message  to  John  the  Baptist,  as  one  proof  of  his 
divine  mission,  that  "  to  the  poor  the  gospel  is  jjreached." 


EXTRAORDINAKY  CULTIVATION  OF  Ta.STK.  205 


Whether  his  gospel  required  "an  educated  and  cul- 
tivated taste"  to  appreciate  its  excellence— or  whether 
the  gospel  of  High  Church  is  precisely ^the  same  with 
his — are  questions  easily  decided  on  such  evidence. 

As  regards  the  extraordinary  cultivation  of  laste  re- 
quired in  order  to  appreciate  the  transcendent  merits  of 
the  Liturgy,  we  produce  only  one  other  illustration.  In 
the  form  for  Episcopal  consecration,  "  the  bishop  elect 
being  vested  with  his  rochet  and  presented  to  the  pre- 
siding bishop " — then  several  other  parts  being  per- 
formed, the  "  bishop  elect  puts  on  the  rest  of  his  Episco- 
pal habit,  and  kneeling  down,  a  hymn  (of  four  verses) 
is  sung  or  said  over  him."  The  third  of  these  stanzas 
runs  as  follows : 

"  Anoint  and  cheer  our  soiled  face 
With  the  abundance  of  tliy  grace,"  &c. 

Our  soiled  face !  The  first  line  is  repeated  by  the 
presiding  bishop  alone,  the  people  replying  in  the  second. 
This  hymn  is  to  be  "said  or  sung"  also  in  the  "ordering 
of  priests,"  but  not  in  "  the  making  of  deacons."  We 
suppose  that  in  the  business  of  "  making  deacons  "  the 
"  soiled  face  "  does  not  occur,  and  is  not  to  be  prayed 
for !  The  Scriptures  often  speak  of  "  filthy  garments," 
"  filthy  lucre,"  "  filthy  rags,"  "  filthy  conversation," 
"  poUut&d  soul,"  "  polluted  priests,"  &c.,  but  of  "  a 
soiled  face  "  they  appear  to  have  nothing  to  say.  But 
perhaps  a  little  more  "  cultivated  taste "  would  niake 
even  this  doggerel  appear  as  "  the  language  of  angels." 

On  a  review  of  this  inquiry  into  the  boasted  merits  of 
the  Liturgy,  Jet  it  be  remembered  that  we  are  only  re- 
turning the  compliment  contained  in  the  assaults  of 
prelatists  widely  circulated,  aud^dcsigned  to  injure  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  "  Dull  common-places  of  ex- 
temporary prayer"  —  "irreverent  familiarity,"  "cold 
and  worldly  emptiness,"  "  the  sluggish  drawl,"  "  the 
thousand  blemishes,  defects,  redundancies  and  extrava- 
gances of  off-hand  worship,"  "  stupid  prayer  meeting," 
&c.,  &c.  These  are  but  a  part  of  the  epithets,  the  rail- 
ing accusations  found  in  their  books.  The^author  of 
one  of  these  volumes  was  brought  up  a  Presbyterian, 


High  Ciiuuch  Episcopacy. 


passed  tlirough  the  Seminary  at  Princeton,  and  became 
a  minister  in  our  church.  After  turning  to  High 
Churchism,  he  with  all  simplicity  makes  this  record  of 
himself  during  three  years  at  Princeton :  "  I  swallowed 
every  fad  and  dogma  as  most  wholesome  truth,  asking  no 
questions  for  conscience  sake ;  and  with  a  credulity  that 
would  have  gained  me  laurels  in  a  school  of  Loyola,  I 
never  for  a  moment  doubted  the  essential  truth  of  the 
prevailing  (Presbyterian)  system."  Surely  this  was  the 
proper  sort  of  a  man  to  leap  at  one  bound  from  Presby- 
teriauisra  over  to  extreme  High  Churchism!  This  is 
the  writer  who  says  "  he  could  not  find  in  the  Bible 
either  example  or  precept  for  family  prayer  " — "modern 
family  prayer,"  he  says,  "  has  dwindled  into  nothing." 
Yet  his  own  Prayer  Book  has  "  forms  of  prayer  to  be 
used  in  families  both  morning  and  evening!"  He  was 
the  right  sort  of  material  to  make  either  a  Jesuit  or  a 
rabid  High  Churchman.  The  only  wonder  is  that  he 
should  make  such  a  curious  revelation  of  himself!* 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  the  conclusion  is  obvious: 
"  Our  incomparable  Liturgy  "  not  only  sinks  to  a  com- 
mon place  level  as  a  system  of  worship,  but  in  many  of 
i  ts  aspects  demonstrates  its  Popish  origin  and  tendencies. 
"  The  holy  days,"  says  Prof.  Woods,  "  kept  in  honor  of 
the  Trinity,  of  angels,  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  many  otliers,  were  all  innovations  by  the  fath- 
ers of  no  early  date."  Bishop  Hobart  himself  admits 
that  "  the  festival  in  honor  of  the  Trinity  is  compara- 
tively modern,  originating  in  the  fourteenth  century." 
Bingham,  their  own  learned  historian,  tells  us  that  at  an 
early  period  (century  four)  the  fathers  used  the  trine  im- 
mersion in  baptism,  the  person,  whether  male  or  female, 
being  naked;  then  they  signed  the  forehead  v:ith  the  cross 
and  anointed  with  holy  oil"  Episcopalians  have  rejected 
these  "  traditions  of  the  elders  " — but  they  still  observe 
a  hundred  and  ten  or  twenty  festivals  and  fasts  which 
have  no  better  autliurity  from  Scripture  or  the  example 
of  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles. 

In  lauding  to  the  skies  such  a  commixture  of  Protes- 

*  Pref=byterian  Clergyman  Lookinpr,  &c.  pp.  5-580. 


Unitarians  Use  the  Liturgy.  267 


tant  truth  and  Romish  superstition,  High  Churchmen 
clearly  play  into  the  hands  of  "our  Lord  the  Pope." 
No  wonder,  therefore,  that  Tractarianism  and  Ritualism 
spread  wide  their  blighting  shadow,  while  their  roots 
strike  deep  in  such  well  prepared  soil.  In  the  prayers, 
indeed,  there  are  many  Scripture  quotations  and  al- 
lusions adapted  to  edify  and  comfort  the  pious  heart, 
whether  "  said  or  sung  " — but  when  we  go  beyond  this 
mark,  we  affirm  that  equally  edifying  and  more  appro- 
priate supplications  and  thanksgivings,  to  say  the  very 
least,  may  be  heard  every  Sabbath  from  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  non- Episcopal  pulpits  in  this  and  other  lands. 
"  Inspired  composition,"  indeed !  And  as  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Liturgy  as  a  protection  against  radical  errors, 
it  is  a  well  ascertained  met  that  Unitarianisra  was  first 
introduced  in  Boston  in  a  church  in  which  the  Prayer 
Book  and  full  Episcopal  service  had  been  used  for  over 
a  century.  With  the  Trinity  stricken  out,  the  Prayer 
Book  is  still  used  in  the  same  church.  And  if  we  should 
go  CO  further,  the  strong  and  natural  tendencies  of  the 
Liturgy  to  Popery,  the  worst  of  all  heresies,  are  matters 
as  near  demonstration  as  most  topics.  "  There  is  a 
lordly  assumption  of  superiority  in  stating  the  claims  of 
the  Prayer  Book,  that  its  history  does  not  warrant.  It 
is  held  up  as  the  barrier  against  heresy,  the  symbol  of 
concord  and  unity,  the  guardian  of  pure  doctrine  with 
which  heresy  and  schism  cannot  abide.  Yet  the  Romish 
Church  has  a  liturgy.  The  Russian  and  Greek  Churches 
have  a  liturgy.  It  has  not  kept  them  in  the  way  of 
evangelical  truth.  The  English  Methodists  use  every 
Sabbath  morning  full  church  service,  but  they  are  as  far 
from  'the  church  '  as  the  Baptists  or  the  Independents. 
The  Congregationalists  of  England,  or  Independents, 
adopt  a  portion  of  the  church  service,  and  are  weakened 
in  the  same  proportion  as  they  use  it.  Colenso's  lawn 
sleeves  do  not  preserve  him  from  infidelity.  Dr.  Pusey, 
in  his  speech  before  the  Church  Union  in  England, 
claims  that  the  Prayer  Book  justifies  him  in  his  attempt 
to  iead  the  Church  of  England  back  to  the  Church  of 
Rome.  These  facts  should  teach  Churchmen  modesty."* 
*  Examiner  and  Chronicle. 


268 


HjGII  ClIUUClI  El'lW-OPACY. 


As  to  tlie  tiresome  uniformity  and  tediousness  of  many 
of  these  stereotyped  prayers,  not  a  few  sincere  Episco})a- 
liaus  habitually  groan  under  the  burden.  Thus,  in  the 
Protestant  Churchman,  a  correspondent  urges  several 
important  changes,  such  as  blotting  from  the  Creed  the 
phraseology,  "He  descended  into  hell" — "conforming 
the  Psalter  to  the  version  in  our  Bibles."  But  espe- 
cially he  says :  "  We  would  like  to  see  the  morning  ser- 
vice reduced  to  such  limits  as  would  tend  to  promote, 
instead  of  destroying  devotion  bj/  physical  fatigue."  This 
strikes  us  as  something  difiVrent  from  the  following : 
"Sets  us  amidst  the  choirs  and  voices  of  angels  and 
archangels — the  more  we  taste  the  more  we  hunger — 
ever  fed  and  never  cloyed,"  &c.,  &c. 

As  to  the  exclusive  use  of  written  forms  of  prayer,  it  is' 
remarkable  that  in  1660,  in  reference  to  a  petition  of 
the  uon-oouformists  "  not  to  be  confined  to  a  liturgy  so 
as  to  prevent  the  minister  from  exercising  the  gift  of 
prayer;"  to  this  the  bishops  reply,  "  that  custom  allows 
of  '  vfrmpore  prayer  before  sermon."*  The  bishops  of 
that  day  had  not  made  the  discoveries  of  modern  times. 
This  was  two  centuries  ago,  before  the  dawn  of  such 
brilliant  lights  as  "  the  clergyman  looking  for  the 
church,"  and  others  of  the  sort. 


*  Bishop  Sliort's  Hist.  Eng.  Cli.,  p.  484. 


Ritualism,  its  Nature  and  Fruits.  269 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

NATURE  AND  FRUITS  OF  HIGH  CHURCH  RITUALISM. 

Another  of  the  legitimate  brood  of  errors,  the 
natural  outgrowth  of  the  Popish  element  of  the  prelati- 
cal  scheme,  is  what  is  called  "  Ritualism."  That  we 
may  not  mistake  its  true  nature  and  tendencies,  we  pre- 
sent the  following  authorities : 

"The  Ritualistic  movement,"  says  Bishop  Mcll- 
vaine,  *  *  *  *  « jg  Tractarianism  ritualized,  the 
tree  in  its  full  leaf  and  flower;  the  old  Romishness  of 
doctrine,  which,  not  many  years  ago,  carried  away  so 
many  of  the  clergy  of  England  and  of  this  country  into 
actual  Romish  conformity  and  profession,  now  boldly 
presenting  itself  upon  the  theatre  of  exhibition,  in  its 
genuine  sacerdotal  dresses  and  pomp,  to  carry  still  fur- 
ther the  work  of  Romish  apostasy." 

Again  says  the  Bishop  of  Ohio,  and  with  still  more 
solemn  emphasis :  "  When  that  abomination  of  desola- 
tion has  come  to  stand  in  the  holy  place,  the  highest 
oftence  of  profanation  is  committed.  Now  let  your  best 
robes  of  meretricious  adornment  be  put  upon  it.  Com- 
pass it  about  with  those  who  perform  before  it  their 
marchings,  and  facings,  and  divers  bowings  and  adora- 
tions, and  their  whole  manual  of  sacerdotal  exercises. 
Multiply  round  its  altar  crosses  of  wood  and  stone,  and 
symbols  of  whatever  device.  Let  the  censer  swing,  and 
priest  intone,  and  say,  '  Come  and  see  our  solemn  rever- 
ence.' We  do  see,  aud  with  shame  and  indignation. 
Reverence  for  wlmtf  Our  Protestant  church  aud  faith 
answers,  '  Reverence  jor  blasphemous  fables  and  dangerous 
deceits'  Reverence  that  kisses  an  image  of  the  cross, 
and  denies  the  full,  perfect  and  sufficient  oblation  and 
satisfaction  of  Jesus  crucified." 

To  the  same  purport  the  Protestant  Churchman: 
"  Romish  views  of  the  sacraments  are  avowed  with  a 
24 


270  High  Church  EpiscopAcy. 


boldness  that  once  was  unknown,  and  men  once  thought 
moderate,  have  developed  into  ultraists.  There  are  few 
moderate  High  Churchmen  now.  This  is  the  work  of 
Ritualism." 

Finally:  The  "Directorium  Auglicanum"  lays  down 
that,  after  the  prayer  of  consecration  at  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, "  it  is  desirable  that  every  person  passing  in  front 
of  the  blessed  sacrament  shall  kneel  down,  bow  his  head, 
or  give  it  some  other  token  of  respect." 

These  are  some  of  the  "many  things"  which,  the 
Episcopalian  says,  "  obtain  among  us,  such  as  unsound 
doctrine,  disgraceful  alliance  with  Popery,  and  ultra 
Ritualism." 

As  to  the  mummeries  practised  by  these  Episcopal 
papists,  the  Bishop  of  Cork,  in  an  address  to  his  clergy 
(1866),  speaks  his  mind  pretty  freely  :  "  We  see  them 
*  *  *  *  endeavoring  to  fix  the  minds  of  men  on 
sights  and  shows,  on  dresses  of  clergy,  on  colors  and 
forms  and  figures,  on  turning  now  to  this  side  and  this 
thing,  and  again  bending  and  bowing  to  that  side  and 
that  thing.  One  time  they  gabble  in  one  part  of  the 
service  and  again  they  mutter  in  another,  as  if  clergy- 
men were  showmen  or  necromancers,  and  the  laity  were 
only  babies  to  be  amused,  or  fools  to  trifle  with  and  not 
teach.  *  *  *  *  gucii  trifling  and  puerility  the 
people  could  have  equally  well  in  theatres,  or  even  in 
heathen  temples  and  from  pagan  priests." 

From  these  extracts  we  can  readily  appreciate  the  ar- 
gument of  Bishop  Hopkins  in  defence  of  Ritualism : 
"  God  clothes  the  earth  with  beauty  and  paints  the 
lilies  of  the  field  with  exquisite  minuteness."  There- 
fore, &c.  How  perfectly  conclusive  !  But  these  men 
are  not  mere  ecclesiastical  mountebanks,  as  the  Bishop 
of  Cork  suggests.  Bishop  Mcllvaine  has  hit  the  mark  : 
"  I  am  opposed  to  this  ritualistic  display.  But  I  am 
more  opposed  to  the  system  of  doctrine  of  which  it  is 
born — -justification  by  sacraments,  instead  of  by  faith 
only,  &c."  "  The  theory,"  says  Hall,  "  is  false  and 
mischievous  ;  and  its  language  is  the  native  ritual  of 
transubstaatiation,"  with  its  "  blasphemous  fables  and 
dangerous  deceits."    "  A  doctrinal  heresy  underlies  the 


Lighted  Candles  in  Day  Light.  271 


wliole  thing."  Or  as  otherwise  expressed,  "  Ritualism 
points  us  to  the  altar,  the  priesthood,  the  'holy  sacri- 
fice,' and  tlie  like."*  Yet  all  this  is  tolerated  in  a 
church  calling  itself  "  Protestant  Episcopal !" 

Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  strange  features  and 
follies  of  Ritualism. 

1.  Take  for  a  specimen,  the  -practice  of  having  lighted 
candles  on  the  altar,  or  communion  table,  in  broad  day 
light.  Lactantius,  and  other  writers  of  ancient  times, 
expose  a  similar  custom  among  the  heathen.  The  very 
idea  of  "  an  altar "  and  candles  burning  on  it,  is,  of 
course,  a  mere  apeing  of  Romanism,  or  as  the  Bishop  of 
Worcester  says,  "  a  leaning  to  the  doctrine  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  mass."  "The  82d  canon,"  he  adds,  "gives 
directions  about  the  '  decent  covering  of  the  communion 
table '  (not  the  altar),  and  the  Rubrics  in  the  Prayer 
Book  uniformly  speak  of  the  Lord's  table."  In  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI  an  order  of  council  was  issued, 
"  that  all  altars  be  taken  down  and  a  table  be  set  up  in 
some  convenient  part  of  the  church,  for  the  ministration 
of  the  blessed  communion."  See  also  Cranmer's  "six 
reasons  why  the  Lord's  board  should  be  after  the  form 
of  a  table,  not  of  an  altar."  The  heathenish  origin  of 
this  custom  of  lighting  candles  in  mid-day,  is  well  ex- 
posed by  Bishop  Jewel  in  his  reply  to  the  Jesuit  Hard- 
ing :  "  Touching  your  lights  and  tapers,"  says  Jewel, 
"  Beatns  Rlienanus,  a  man  of  great  learning  and  judg- 
ment, doubteth  not  but  ye  borrowed  the  use  thereof 
from  the  heathen."  He  also  quotes  Jerome,  of  century 
four,  thus :  "  We  light  not  our  tapers  at  mid-day,  but 
only  by  this  comfort  to  ease  the  darkness  of  the  night." 
And  the  ancient  father  Lactantius,  thus :  "  What ! 
May  we  think  he  is  rvell  in  his  wits,  that  unto  God,  the 
maker  and  giver  of  light,  will  offer  candl&s  and  tapers 
for  a  present."  A  volume  has  been  published  by  Eng- 
lish Tractarians,  expounding  all  about  "  the  triangular 
candlestick,  and  how  the  six  candles  are  to  be  extin- 
guished at  proper  intervals.  The  topmost  candle  is  to 
ba  taken  from  its  place  and  hid  under  the  epistle  side 
of  the  altar,"  &c.,  &c. 

*  Rev.  Dr.  Hall,  Episcop  il  Rector  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


272  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


Of  these  and  similar  follies,  the  Hartford  Calendar, 
an  Episcopal  journal,  says: 

"What  next! — incense-burning,  bell-tinkling,  paper 
flowers,  and  light  from  imitation  candles?  Such  char- 
acterize Popish  churches  where  candles  are  significant 
symbols.  The  attempt  looks  monkeyish,  if  not  monk- 
ish. What  is  the  limit  set  to  these  onward  steps  ?  Are 
they  bound  to  Canterbury,  thence  to  Rome  ?  Look  be- 
fore you  leap.  What  is  Popery,  but  the  sum  of  addi- 
tions made,  a  little  now,  and  a  little  then,  to  the  fair 
body  of  truth,  till  the  poor  body  has  become  crushed 
and  lost  to  sight — -a  corrupt  thing  smelling  very  bad  to 
the  healthy  sense?" 

2.  The  iise  of  incense  is  of  the  same  suspicious  parent- 
age. The  pagan  priests  universally  employed  it  in  their 
idolatrous  worship.  Mosheim  informs  us  that  "  the 
Christians  originally  abhorred  the  use  of  incense  in 
public  worship,  as  being  a  part  of  the  woeship  of 
inor>s,  except  at  funerals."  He  refers  to  Tertullian's 
Apologia,  chapter  42,  and  Corona  Militis,  chapter  10: 
*'  Afterwards  it  was  used  at  the  induction  of  magistrates 
and  bishops,  then  in  places  of  worship,  to  temper  the 
bad  air  of  crowded  assemblies  in  hot  countries ;  and  at 
last  it  degenerated  into  a  superstitious  rite."*  Even 
Dr.  Hook  concedes  that  incense  was  not  used  by  Chris- 
tians in  worship  until  the  sixth  century .f  Of  course 
this  practice  is  only  additional  homage  to  Popery  and 
her  mummeries — a  species  of  "will-worship"  which 
Paul  would  have  indignantly  repudiated. 

But  says  Bishop  Hopkins,  "  the  Jews  used  incense  in 
the  tabernacle  and  temple  woi-ship."  Ye3,  and  they 
also  had  bloody  sacrifices — both  by  divine  command. 
Prove  that  Christ  or  his  Apostles  gave  any  such  direc- 
tions, and  we  will  listen  to  you.  But,  adds  the  Bishop, 
"  Malaclii  says.  Prom  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going 
down  of  the  same,  in  every  place  incense  shall  be  offered 
unto  my  name,  &c."  Mai.  1 :  11.  By  such  logic  it 
would  be  easy  to  prove  that  animal  sacrifices  were  not 
required  under  the  old  economy ;  for  does  not  David 

»  Vol.  I,  p.  188.  Note. 

+  Church  Diet..  Xrt.  Incense. 


Incense  and  Bowing  towards  the  Altar.  273 


say,  "  Thou  desirest  not  sacrifice  ?"  And  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  quite  as  easy  to  prove  the  perpetual  obliga- 
tion of  those  sacrifices — for  is  it  not  said  of  such  servi- 
ces, "This  shall  be  an  ordinance /orever /"  Tluis  the 
Passover,  the  an(;inting  of  Aaron's  posterity  and  even 
the  sounding  of</ie  trumpets,  yvas  "anordiuance/oreye?'/" 
We  may  yet  hear  the  silver  trumpets  sounding  the  ap- 
proach of  some  procession,  headed  by  the  wooden  cross ! 
Then  will  have  come  the  "  golden  age  "  of  Tractariau- 
ism — which  though  "  beaten  in  argument,"  as  Bishop 
Mcllvaiue  has  well  observed,  "has  never  been  put 
down."  "  It  re-appears,"  he  says,  "  in  the  present  ex- 
travagant Ritualism."  "  The  peril  of  idolatry  is  re- 
vived." 

Bishop  Hopkins  complains  of  "the  unfitness  of  the 
Episcopal  costume  to  missionary  work."*  So  says  Bishop 
Coxe.  He  might  have  gone  further.  The  Episcopal 
Methodist  gives  the  following  illustration  : 

"  A  former  Episcopalian  missionary  to  the  frontier 
regions  of  the  West,  now  an  excellent  bishop,  could  tell 
some  good  stories  in  illustration  of  the  difiiculty  of  in- 
stituting the  formal  services  of  his  church  among  the 
congregations  called  from  highways  and  hedges,  where 
they  had  gatheied  no  prayer  books,  nor  heard  of  Ascen- 
sion days  and  Trinity  Sundays.  Upon  one  occasion, 
having  collected  a  small  congregation,  he  distributed 
service  books  and  tried  to  teach  the  decent  use  of  them ; 
but  in  the  midst  of  the  reading  he  was  interrupted  by 
the  most  serious  and  zealous  of  his  untutored  flock,  with 
'  Slow !  Mr.  Preacher  !  Slow  !  Mr.  Preacher  !  Don't  go 
so  fast.    Us  folks  is  not  used  to  this  sort  of  thing.'  " 

3.  Bowing  towards  the  altar.  Naaman,  the  Syrian, 
was  familiar  with  this  sort  of  worship  in  "  the  house  of 
Rimmon."  In  Naaman  and  the  sincere  papist,  the  latter 
believing  that  the  priest  has  just  converted  the  wafer 
into  his  God,  the  act  of  worship  is  of  course  quite  natu- 
ral. But  since  the  "  Prayer  Book,"  in  several  places 
and  in  most  emphatic  language,  condemns  the  infamous 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  as  "  a  blasphemous  fable," 

*  Ckjnversationa  on  Ritualism,  \'.  91, 


274  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


this  bowing  towards  the  communion  tahle  is  bald  super- 
stition in  sincere  Episcopalians.  The  Tractarian  "  Di- 
redoriun  Anglicanum"  understands  this  matter  well. 
"  When  the  consecration  and  adoration  " — observe,  the 
adoration  !  "  of  the  sacred  body  are  over,"  &c.  Again, 
"  the  one  aim  is  to  offer  the  whole  sacrifice."  "  Before 
the  transubstantiation  and  consecration  of  the  sacra- 
ment," &c.  But  the  28th  Article  of  the  Prayer  Book 
expressly  says  :  "  The  body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken  and 
eaten  in  the  supper,  only  after  an  heavenly  and  spititual 
manner."  Hooker,  a  prince  among  prelatists,  adds: 
"  The  real  presence  of  Christ's  most  blessed  body  and 
blood  is  not  to  be  sought  in  the  sacrament,  but  in  the 
worthy  receiver  of  the  sacrament."  Even  the  Bishop 
of  Exeter  condemns  "  the  adoration  of  the  sacramental 
bread  and  wine,"  which,  says  he,  "  our  church  denounces 
as  idolatry  to  be  abhorred  of  all  faithful  Christians." 
Hence  many  of  the  early  Reformers  refused  so  much  as 
io  kneel  at  the  reception  of  the  sacramental  elements ; 
because  they  thought  it  countenanced  the  old  Romish 
superstition.*  Bishop  H.  may  repudiate  the  idea  of 
worshipping  bread  and  wine ;  but  actions  speak  louder 
than  words,  especially  in  matters  pertaining  to  religion. 
"  It  seems  to  me,"  says  Bishop  Coxe  of  New  York,  "  as 
mocking  God,  when  I  see  Christian  ministers  spending 
their  nights  and  days  in  studying  the  mere  romance  of 
religion,  and  in  talking  and  thinking  about  postures  and 
bows  and  crossings,  and  this  color  and  that  in  the  ser- 
vice of  Him,"  &c.t  Mr.  Newman  and  his  aids  openly 
avowed  their  purpose  thus :  "  I  am  leading  my  hearers 
to  the  primitive  church,  but  not  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land."   "I  am  disposing  them  towards  Rome."  "If 

*  A  correspondent  of  one  of  the  Episcopal  journals  complains 
tliat  Dr.  Dix,  of  Trinity  church,  New  York,  keeps  bowing  during 
divine  service,  and  especially  at  such  expressions  as  "This  is  my 
body,"  and  "  This  is  my  blood,"  in  the  communion  service.  He 
also  asks  why  l)r.  Dix  and  others  went  out  of  the  church,  at 
a  late  celebration  of  the  sacrament — backwards — and  bowed  very 
low  at  the  door  towards  tlie  altar.  He  believes  that  these  men 
hold  the  doctrine  of  a  real  presence  in  the  elements,  and  act  ac- 
cordingly. 

t  Criterion,  p.  125. 


Adoration  of  the  Elements.  275 


this  process  will  approximate  the  whole  English  Church 
as  a  body  to  Rome,  that  is  nothing  to  us."  This  was  at 
least  caudid.  But  American  Ritualists  disoulse  their 
Romanism  a  little  better,  though  the  animus  is  equally 
patent  to  all  close  observers.  In  England  the  "  Chris- 
tian Remembrancer,"  aTractariau  publiealion,  does  not 
hesitate  (July,  1866,)  to  proclaim  that  "  the  inter]Meta- 
tion  of  the  thirty-nine  Articles  by  Mr.  Newnuui  in  Ti  iict 
90,  is  in  diametrical  opposition  to  what  Crannier,  Ridley 
and  Latimer  meant  to  teach  in  those  articles.  But  it 
adds,  "  There  is  no  other  method  of  reconciling 
THE  Prayer  Book  and  the  Articles,"  &c.  If  our 
American  Ritualists  would  speak  out  in  this  style,  we 
should  have  more  respect  for  their  morals.  But  they 
are  coming  to  it.  Bishop  Hopkins  informs  us,  that 
"  our  Ritual  is  at  present  in  a  formative  and  transitional 
state.  It  is  incomplete,  maimed,  imperfect."*  Already 
he  half  approves  of  the  use  of  oil  in  confirmation,  "by 
which,"  he  says,  "  we  are  reminded  of  the  holy  anoint- 
ing oil  commanded  by  the  Mosaic  ritual."  Smith,  in 
his  Bible  Dictionary,  says,  "  The  anointing  oil  was  used 
by  the  Mosaic  law  on  high  priests  alone."  A  very  lame 
precedent  for  its  use  in  confirmation  on  the  persons  of 
thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  youth  of  both  sexes ! 
Dr.  Hall,  in  his  reply  to  Bishop  Hopkins,  quotes  the 
latter's  "  History  of  the  British  Reformation,"  as  fol- 
lows ;  he  is  arguing  with  the  Romanists :  "  The  uncov- 
ering of  the  head,  the  falling  prostrate  "  (or  bowing 
according  to  modern  usage),  "the  kisses  of  devout  affec- 
tion, the  burning  of  incense  and  the  lighting  of  candles 
before  the  holy  images,  as  the  second  Council  of  Nice 
constantly  calls  them — what  are  all  these,  if  they  be  7iot 
acts  of  worship  f"  This  was  published  some  twenty-three 
years  before  the  Bishop's  "  Conversations  on  Ritualism." 
Probably  Bishop  H.  had  forgotten  it  in  1867.  So  when 
speakin^r  of  certain  traditions  of  the  close  of  the  tliird 
century  about  the  sign  of  the  cross,  white  garments  for 
seven  days  after  baptism,  of  holy  oil,  of  iucense — '  of 
which  not  a  few  of  the  fathers  complained  " — the  bishop 

*  Conversations  on  Ritualism,  p.  41. 


276 


High  Church  Episcopacy. 


formerly  said,  "  So  far  were  they  from  seeking  for  them 
an  apostolic  origin,"  &c.  Even  the  learned  Bingham, 
as  Hall  remarks,  declares  "  the  original  of  holy  garments 
to  have  been  '  uncertain  traditions ' — matters  of  indiffer- 
ent usage." 

In  his  "  Conversations  "  (p.  10)  Bishop  Hopkins  says 
that  "  he  had  seen  at  least  six  different  ways  of  cutting 
the  surplice" — "chancels  arranged  at  least  in  half  a 
dozen  different  ways  " — "  by  some  preachers  the  sur- 
plice is  used,  by  others  the  academic  gown — others  (even 
hisJwps!)  preach  without  any  vestment  at  all."  And  as 
to  postures  after  communion,  he  says  "  he  has  seen  some 
kneeling  to  receive  the  remaining  elements  " — "  others 
come  forward  and  stand  and  talk  while  they  are  eating 
and  drinking  the  same!"  But  the  case  he  most  admires 
and  applauds,  is  "  that  of  a  devout  layman  who  carefully 
gathered  up  and  reverently  consumed  any  particle  of  the 
bread  that  might  have  fallen  on  the  floor !"  ( )ur  Ro- 
manist "  brethren  "  are  still  more  particular  in  "  gath- 
ering any  particle,"  &c.,  providing  the  proper  remedy 
in  case  the  holy  wafer  has  disordered  the  stomach  and 
produced  a  reverse  movement!!  The  bishop,  or  his 
successors,  will  probably  come  to  that ! 

Now  let  any  person  of  sound  mind  open  the  New  Tes- 
tament and  search  for  an  inspired  pattern  for  all  this 
zeal  for  man-millinery  and  superstition  in  the  mantua- 
makiug  line!  For  this  "pantomime  called  worship," 
says  Bishop  Coxe,  "  this  dumb-show  and  musical  trick- 
ery, the  Romish  Church  is  the  only  thing  that  harmon- 
izes." But  he  adds,  Bishop  Hopkins  "justly  complains 
of  the  Episcopal  costume  as  unfit  for  missionary  work  ;" 
and  Bishop  Coxe  regards  "  its  intolerable  weight  and 
heat  at  the  South  in  summer,  as  an  affliction  " — but  "  in 
winter,"  he  adds,  "  I  have  often  desired  the  warmth  of  a 
cloth  cope  while  ministering  in  cold  churches."  This 
was  said  for  the  latitude  of  western  New  York.  "  Com- 
mon sense,"  adds  the  latter  bishop,  "as  distinguished 
from  clerical  foppery,  will  seldom  give  oflTence."  He  is, 
however,  constrained  to  concede  to  the  Bishop  of  Ver- 
mont thus  far,  "that  our  black  satin  is  not  a  very 
ornamental  habit."    In  a  foot  note  Bishop  Coxe  also 


Ritualism  Semi-Popish.  277 


furnishes  this  piece  of  information:  "The  chimere,  I 
believe,  is  only  a  cope  improperly  modified  by  the  ex- 
cessive lawn  sleeves.  If  restored  to  its  true  form,  the 
sleeves  might  be  fiistened  to  the  rochet,  and  the  cope  put 
on  and  off  very  conveniently."  AVe  earnestly  hope  the 
Tractarians  will  not  di.«pute  this  faith  of  Bishop  Coxe. 
He,  however,  is  of  Presbyterian  or  Puritan  ancestry, 
and  is,  therefore,  not  too  absolutely  to  be  depended  on 
in  such  weighty  matters!  As  to  the  scriptural  propri- 
ety of"  any  striking  peculiarities  in  his  outward  shows" 
on  the  part  of  the  clergyman,  wc  rather  incline  to  the 
following  views  of  his  Episcopal  brother.  Dr.  Hall : 
"Does  Bishop  Hopkins  really  dream  that  St.  Peter  or 
St.  Paul  ever  had  on  such  a  thing  as  '  a  sacerdotal  vest- 
ment,' or  gave  a  care  as  to  whether  the  gospel  of  the 
cross  would  be  more  kindly  received  in  a  white  pallium 
or  a  blue  ephod?"*  The  "cloak  which  Paul  left  at 
Troas"  (2  Tim.  4  :  18)  would  possibly  shed  some  light 
upon  the  subject,  if  it  could  be  discovered  among  the 
relics  presei-ved  at  Eome.  We  suggest  a  devout  pil- 
grimage to  "  the  holy  father"  to  settle  the  question. 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  most  resi)ectable  Epis- 
copal authorities  to  prove  all  that  we  have  said  in  re- 
gard to  the  Romish  and  superstitious  tendencies  of  these 
ritualistic  movements.  Look  at  this  from  the  Protestant 
Churchman:  "  Sacramentariau  Ritualism  is  revolution- 
izing the  usage  of  our  Reformed  Church.  It  began 
years  ago  with  the  silly  and  seemingly  harmless  fancy 
of  calling  the  '  holy  table '  the  '  altar.'  Then  it  made 
of  wood  a  box  which  in  some  respects  would  justify  the 
name.  Afterward  it  added  a  reredos  and  a  super-altar 
and  a  cross  to  this  non-Prayer  Book  structure.  Lights 
have  been  added  one  after  another,  and  flowers.  And 
now  in  one  place  an  incense-less  (senseless  ?)  censer  is 
shaken  before  the  wood  idol,  and  the  most  exaggerated 
prostrations  are  performed  at  its  foot." 

So  a  recent  "  Declaration  "  put  forth  by  a  number  of 
the  Episcopal  clergy  and  laity,  contains  the  following : 

"  The  essential  principle  of  these  tendencies  is  an  en- 

*True  Prot.  Ritualism,  p.  103. 


278  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


tire  subversion  of  the  Protestant  and  evangelical  char- 
acter of  our  Reformed  Church.  It  transforms  the  min- 
istry of  the  gospel  into  a  priesthood  ;  baptism  into  a 
majiical  rite  ;  the  Lord's  supper  into  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass ;  evangelical  liberty  into  bondage  to  manifold  ob- 
servances and  ceremonies  ;  and  the  one  church  of  ChrL^t, 
'  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people,'  into  the 
body  of  those  who  recognize  and  conform  to  a  mere 
sacerdotal  system." 

Well  may  they  add  :  "  We  feel  compelled  to  affirm 
that  in  many  of  the  pulpits  of  our  church  another  gos- 
pel is  preached,  which  is  not  the  gospel  of  Christ." 

And  the  Prote>itant  Churchman  speaks  boldly,  as  fol- 
lows :  "  There  are  many  clergymen  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  whom  we  do  not  recognize  in  any 
sense  as  '  brethren  in  the  ministry.'  We  might  as  well 
speak  plainly  on  this  point." 

A  l)rilliant  illustration  of  this  "  other  gospel  "  is  the 
following  from  an  Episcopal  source:  "  The  celebrant 
was  vested  in  a  cliasuble;  t!.e  deacon  wore  a  dalmatic, 
and  the  sul)-(leacou  a  tnnicle.  Each  wore  a  maniple, 
whicli  is  like  a  short  stole,  over  the  left  arm.  A  laced 
alb  was  also  worn,  both  by  the  celebrant  and  the  deacon. 
The  celebrant  sang  the  communion  office-"  "  The  cele- 
brant (priest)  sung  the  communion  office,"  in  other 
words,  sung  what  corresponded  to  the  following: 
"  And  as  they  did  eat,  Jesus  took  liread,  and  blessed 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them,  and  said  :  Take,  eat ; 
this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and  when  he 
had  given  thanks,  he  gave  it  to  them ;  and  they  all 
drank  of  it." 

"  Jesus  said,"  but  he  did  not  use  the  devices  of  the 
tuneful  Tractarians !  All  this,  be  it  observed,  is  toler- 
ated without  any  authoritative  rebuke  or  discipline,  in 
a  church  which  makes  large  pretensions  to  "  unity  !" 
In  this  respect  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country 
follows  pretty  closely  in  the  footsteps  of  her  Anglican 
mother!  "  The  state  of  the  Church  of  Eugland,"  says 
Bishop  Short,*  "  is  that  of  a  perfect  toleration  of  religious 

*  History  Churcli  of  England,  p.  437. 


Bethlehem  Bread  and  Jerusalem  Grapes.  279 


opinions."  "The  absurd  nature  of  our  ecclesiastical 
laws,"  adds  the  bishop,  "  renders  every  species  of  dis- 
cipline over  the  laity  nugatory,"  "  it  can  hardly  exist 
where  universal  dissent  is  tolerated."  "  With  regard  to 
discipline  among  ourselves  (the  clergy)  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  is  much  wanted;"  "  there  is  a  total  inabili- 
ty of  our  church  to  regulate  anything  within  herself, 
and  the  great  want  of  discipline  over  the  clergy."  So 
the  English  Episcopal  Church  quietly  tolerates  such 
Arians  as  Drs.  S.  Clarke,  Iloadley  and  others ;  as  to  Co- 
lenso,  all  know  where  to  place  him !  That  church  may 
say,  "  These  are  my  jewels,"  all  "  successors  of  the 
Apostles!  '  That  these  Tractarian  fopperies  have  not 
met  with  any  very  great  02)position  from  many  of  the 
bishops  in  this  country,  is  proved  thus  :  At  the  great 
Pan-Anglican  Convocation  in  England,  the  editor  of 
the  Protestant  Churchman  writes  home,  that  "  the  Amer- 
ican eye  has  grown  quite  familiar  with  the  '  Lord  Bish- 
op '  prefix  to  our  American  prelates.  The  Bishops  of 
New  York  and  Illinois  have  adopted  the  Episcopal 
dress,  of  cassock  shirt  and  knee-breeches,  for  official 
occasions;  while  the  Assistant  Bishop  of  Indiana  has 
accepted  the  cassock  shirt  as  part  of  his  daily  costume. 
We  do  not  observe  that  any  have  adopted  as  yet  the 
Episcopal  looped  hat." 

We  learn  from  other  sources  that  "the  bread  and 
wine  used  at  the  Pan-communion  service  were,  the  one 
from  Bethlehem,  and  the  other  from  Jerusalem  grapes." 
A  little  holy  water  from  the  river  Jordan  or  from  Pio 
Nono  would  have  completed  the  service.  "  Such  a 
scene,"  says  th  j  Protestant  Churchman,  "  has  never  be- 
fore been  presented — it  had  an  immense  significancy." 

In  view  of  these  developments  it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  Rev.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  Jr.,  should  write  in  a 
style  of  alarm,  thus  : 

"  The  anxieties  of  all  lovers  of  Protestant  truth  are 
aroused  lest  this  venerable  communion  should  again  be 
betrayed  to  its  pre-Reformation  foes.  The  steady  ad- 
vance of  Tractarian  doctrine,  the  unresisted  develop- 
ment of  ritualistic  practices,  the  growth  of  exclusive- 
ness  towards  other  Reformed  churches,  and  the  ^manifest 


280 


High  Church  Eplscopacy. 


tendencies  towards  some  sort  of  intercommunion  with 
the  Greek,  if  not  the  Roman,  Church — all  these  facts 
comhine  to  produce  doubtfulness  among  those  within 
the  dear  old  Protestant  Episcopal  Church." 

More  than  this :  Both  the  elder  Tyng  and  Bishop 
Mcllvaine  have,  in  public  addresses,  maintained  that 
High  Church  Tractarianism  is  forming  a  ready  alliance 
with  and  taking  to  its  arms,  certain  forms  of  infidelity, 
I.  e.  Rationalism.  "  In  truth,"  says  the  Protestant  Church- 
man, "  it  is  a  painful  and  significant  fact,  that  the  sac- 
ramentarian  is  ready  to  form  alliance  with  any  form  of 
error  that  will  seem  to  help  him  to  fight  against  a  dis- 
tinctly evangelical  faith." 

Quite  consistently,  therefore,  in  some  points  they  are 
already  taking  the  lead  of  Rome  herself.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  papists  admit  the  validity  of  baptism 
when  performed  by  laymen,  even  by  a  midwife  in  ex- 
tremis. But  the  Ejpiscopal  Methodist  records  the  follow- 
ing as  occurring  in  the  year  of  grace  1867:  "  The  Rev. 
W.  M.  D.  More  testifies  that  he  baptized,  July  13th, 
a  sick  child  at  Smithville,  North  Carolina ;  and  that 
Rev.  Mr.  Watson  afterwards  re-baptized  the  same  sick 
child.  Surely  Episcopalianism,  in  its  High  Church 
forms,  is  running  mad." 

In  contemplating  a  church  composed  of  such  ele- 
ments of  discord  as  even  this  imperfect  sketch  comprises, 
especially  when  we  also  consider  the  fatal  heresies  thus 
cherished  in  her  very  bosom — with  what  shame  and  in- 
dignation must  we  read  such  a  statement  from  one  of 
their  own  papers  as  this :  "  The  Low  Church  party  has 
acted  for  years  past  as  a  feeder  to  its  most  active  and 
unscrupulous  partner,  the  connecting  link  between  non- 
Episcopal  denominations  and  an  exclusive  Ritualistic 
Episcopacy." 

Here,  by  the  confession  of  a  leading  periodical  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  all  the  pleasant  words  and  kind 
greetings  on  our  part  have  chiefly  contributed  to  swell 
the  tide  of  Ritualism,  by  inducing  members  to  forsake 
other  Protestaut  communions  for  the  Episcopal  Low 
Church,  and  thence  quickly  to  pass  over  to  Ritualistic 
High  Churchism.    Yet  Dr.  Hugh  McNeill,  one  of  the 


Endless  Varieties  of  Opinion.      2s  1 


evangelical  leaders  in  England,  in  speaking  of  the  com- 
munion service  at  St.  Alban's,  employs  this  emphatic 
language :  "  I  am  so  conscientiously  persuaded  that 
what  is  called  the  high  celebration  at  St.  Alban's,  Hol- 
born,  is  idolatry,  that  I  could  no  more  consent  to  share 
in  it,  than  I  could  be  wilfully  guilty  of  Sabbath-break- 
ing, adultery,  or  theft." 

Ho !  "  Ye  Babel  sects  " — "  ye  rival  systems  of  man's 
device  " — look  here  at  "  the  uniformity  of  the  doctrine 
of  THE  church!"  In  her  light  see  your  own  "depar- 
tures from  evangelical  truth  and  order."  Behold  "  her 
ONE  UNIFORM  FACE  reflecting  the  light  and  glory  of  her 
Lord."*  An  exquisite  illustration  of  this  "uniform 
face  "  in  the  Anglican  Church  was  given  at  the  "  Bi- 
centenary Commemoration  "  in  1862,  by  Dean  Close. 
Whether  matters  are  better  here,  is  exceedingly  doubt- 
ful. Said  the  dean  :  "  It  is  a  thing  patent  and  not  to 
be  denied,  that  at  the  present  moment  we  have  among 
the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  the  representatives 
of  almost  evei-y  opinion  under  heaven.  This  at  least  is 
my  opinion.  The  varieties  are  so  great  and  notorious,  as 
to  range  from  the  very  verge  of  the  precipice  of  infidel- 
ity on  the  one  hand  "  (Essayism,  to  wit),  "to  the  very 
verge  of  Romish  superstition  on  the  other,  and  of  course 
include  all  the  colors,  and  complexions,  and  shades  of 
opinion  between  one  extreme  and  the  other." 

So  the  "  Churchman's  Guide  to  Faith  and  Piety," 
published  in  England,  has  besides  instructions  for  de- 
voutly receiving  the  holy  Eucharist  and  assisting  at  the 
sacred  mysteries,  prayers  for  the  faithful  departed.  The 
real  presence  and  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  holy 
Eucharist  are  expressed  in  the  clearest  possible  manner. 

Thus,  too,  "  the  use  of  crucifixes  and  images,  and  es- 
pecially the  image  of  the  Virgin,  holding  her  Divine 
Son  in  her  arms,  is  by  no  means  uncommon  among  the 
more  advanced  Ritualists  ;  and  some  clergymen  are  in 
the  habit  of  blessing  objects  of  devotion,  such  as  medals 
and  crosses,  and  even  of  blessing  holy  water.  A  corres- 
pondent of  a  London  newspaper  writes  a  letter  of  indig- 

*  Van  Deusen,  Christian.  Kep.,  Sermon  VII,  &c. 


282  High  Church  Episcopacy. 


nant  complaint  about  the  Christmas  celebrations  at 
some  of  the  '  advanced '  churches,  in  one  of  which  he 
declares  that  '  numberless  tapers  shed  their  halo  of  glory 
upon  a  veritable  Bambino,^  or  figure  of  the  infant  Sav- 
iour lying  in  the  manger." 

Justly  has  Bishop  Coxe,  who  claims  to  be  a  High 
Churchman,  declared  of  these  Popish  follies:  "I  oppose 
them  on  the  ground  that  they  are  shockingly  irreverent, 
that  they  degrade  the  worship  of  the  church,  and  re- 
duce the  august  solemnities  of  the  Lord's  supper  to  a 
miserable  pageant  as  ludicrous  as  it  is  in  their  power  to 
make  it." 

Yet  our  American  ritualistic  Tractarians  do  not  seem 
to  be  quite  keeping  pace  mth  their  lively  mother  of 
England.  The  Froiestant  Churchman  says  that  "  there 
are  one  hundred  and  fifty  churches  in  England  where 
candles  are  regularly  used  in  daylight  worship ;"  and 
twenty-one  clergymen  have  sent  to  his  Grace  of  Canter- 
bury a  profession  of  their  belief  in  the  real  presence, 
very  much  in  the  style  of  Romish  transubstantiation. 
Thus  they  are  prepared  to  adopt  a  doctrine  which  Bish- 
op South  calls  "  the  most  stupendous  piece  of  nonsense 
that  ever  was  owned  in  the  rational  world  ;"  a  doctrine 
by  which,  says  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  "  the  same  thing 
stays  in  a  place  and  goes  away  from  it ;  removes  from 
itself  and  yet  abides  close  by  itself  and  in  itself  and  out 
of  itself.  *  *  *  It  is  brought  from  heaven  to  earth,  and 
yet  never  stirs  out  of  heaven.  It  makes  a  thing  con- 
tained bigger  than  that  which  contains  it,  and  all 
Christ's  body  to  go  into  a  part  of  his  body — his  whole 
body  into  his  own  mouth,  if  he  did  eat  the  "Eucharist,  as 
it  is  probable  he  did,  and  certain  he  might  have  done." 
Jlen  who  can  believe  that  our  blessed  Lord  took  his  own 
body  into  his  hands  and  gave  his  whole  self  to  each  of 
the  Apostles  seated  before  him,  have  certainly  credulity 
enough  to  be  sound  Papists  of  the  strictest  sort  I 

So,  in  the  evidence  before  the  Ritual  Commission,  a 
clergyman  testified  that  he  was  at  the  church  three  days 
in  the  week  during  certain  hours  for  the  purpose  of 
hearing  confession,  &c.;  and  he  acknowledged  that  it 
was  usual  to  impose  penances  in  all  cases 


Advice  to  all  "  the  Sects. 


283 


Our  American  High  Churchmen  must  quicken  their 
steps,  otherwise  they  will  fall  in  the  rear !  Well  may 
the  London  Quarterly  Review  say,  that  in  the  Anglican 
Church,  "  discipline  "has  ceased  to  be  a  reality."  Is  it 
better  in  this  country  ? 

Ho  !  Ye  "  Babel  sects  !"  "Ye  apostate  sects !"  Be- 
hold "  the  Episcopal  Church  " — "  one  and  the  same — 
unaltered  in  her  creed — undivided  in  her  unity — every- 
where, always,  indissolubly  one  !"*  No  wonder  High 
Churchmen  are  becoming  tired  of  the  name  "  Protes- 
tant !"  "  Their  ancient  creed,"  they  say,  "  can  be  writ- 
ten on  your  thumb-nail" — i.  e-,  the  Apostle's  creed,  as  it 
is  falsely  called — "and  for  the  rest  you  may  believe,  salva 
fide,  as  you  please  .'"f  All  these  things  are  bright  illus- 
trations of  what  is  called  "  the  unbroken  uniformity  of 
the  discipline  and  worship  of  the  church  !"J  A  late 
number  of  the  London  Quarterly  tells  of  Rev.  Samuel 
Wesley,  Rector  of  Epworth,  "dining  with  the  mistresses  of 
the  Marquis  of  Normanby,  who  was  his  'patron.'"  It 
then  adds,  very  quietly,  "  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
he  (Wesley)  should  attempt  to  excommunicate  his  noble 
patron,  the  Marquis  of  Normanby!"  The  Quarterly 
assures  us  that  matters  of  discipline  are  in  a  far  worse 
state  now  than  in  the  days  of  S.  Wesley  ! 

In  'regard  to  the  latest  developments  of  Ritualism  in 
England,  Mr.  Spurgeon,  who  is  a  reliable  witness,  says : 
"  They  (Ritualists)  have  increased  from  a  mere  hand- 
ful to  become  certainly  the  most  vital  and  dominant 
party  in  the  Church  of  England ;  and,  to  our  intense 
surprise  and  horror,  they  have  brought  people  to  receive 
again  the  Popery  which  we  thought  dead  and  buried. 
If  anybody  had  told  me  twenty  years  ago  that  the 
Witch  of  Endor  would  become  Queen  of  England,  I 
should  as  soon  have  believed  it,  as  that  we  should  have 
seen  such  a  High  Church  development." 

In  the  same  connection  he  says  :  "  To  me  their  creed 
is  intolerable  nonsense,  and  their  proceedings  are  child- 
ish fooleries." 

*  Clergyman  Looking  for  the  Church,  p.  232. 
tlbid.         tVan  Deusen,  p.  139. 


I 


